This is pretty much biased bullshit, individualism can be just as responsible for as much destruction and oppression as any collectivist regime, one just has to look at the systemic violence that occurs everyday in a modern capitalist "democracy". At the moment the free market looks as if it could be responsible for the destruction of countless livelihoods across the globe.
@almanacofsleep Too bad that holds no base value. We don't have have free markets. Fact. Corporatism, government interventionism and keynesian inflationism in the U.S for example, is not free market capitalism. Democracy is another fallacy. Democracy's always lead to fascism, which is the why, for example, the U.S was based on a constitutional republic. Free markets had nothing to do with the global economic issues. There isn't a single fact to back that assertion.
@almanacofsleep If you want to understand an issue, you have to stop being ignorant. Apply a label such as free markets and targeting it towards an economic down turn, because you read it on some hippy website, doesn't make it true.
The point is, individualism is the foundation of rights that individuals have. Compared to a mentality that rights are packaged in groups, formed by government that they can label. Individualism is the foundation for liberty. So much biased stuff, right...
When looking a bit at Norway shooter Breivik's writings, I notice in one his blogs, he supports individualism, but he of course, is loudly against multiculturalism.
But I wonder: how can you be against multiculturalism, but be for individualism? Isn't multiculti- the right to practice one's culture as one law-abidingly sees fit- a part OF individualism?
I don't ask this of Breivik, because he's obviously a lunatic, but of people calling him a hero (which churns my stomach!).
@cleanhomer He also was for a ton of other crazy shit that contradicted each other. A psycho is a psycho. I can't call myself a libertarian, than claim that we should keep marijuana illegal and ban raw milk, because I claim it's not good for you. The concept of libertarians still remains true, regardless of how I twist it. Multiculturalism stems into another group of thinking. As an individual, you have rights. It's irrelevant to the pro/con of multiculturalism.
@xKenseixX But without multiculturalism, you can't really have the opportunity to be yourself, to let your individualism flourish. It remains stuck, by the law of the land, under a nationalistic, fascist, etc. ideologue. I mean, what exactly is culture anyways? A collection of traditions, dress, food, holidays, literature, etc. that a certain group of people share. And don't individual people have interests that sway even a little bit away from the group, even if it's harmless interest?
@cleanhomer Peoples views on multiculturalism is irrelevant. Individuals have certain unalienable rights, that can't be stripped by the whims of government or a majority. People are against multiculturalism in the sense of one group taking over an area rich with history and changing it. Like California. Illegals made up mostly of Mexicans have taken over many cities, not assimilated or even learned English and just stick in their little pods. A person can be for individualism, yet still dislike
@xKenseixX "not assimilated"? So, you're saying individualism cannot be for those who are the minority in the region. They have to assimilate- not truly be themselves- in order to make the bigger group more comfortable. How about simply enforcing immigration law on the individuals braking that law (including businesses that exploit those individuals)? Persons can honestly be culturally Mexican if they want, even if others disagree.
@cleanhomer the affects of a massive group of people changing the make up of the region. Multiculturalism isn't a requirement to be yourself. If this was the case, how can those who were a majority with rich culture, who are now a minority to Muslims let's say for example, be themselves? You can turn it around and look at it exactly the same.
You have god give/natural rights. Irrelevant to those who would like to see their culture and area preserved.
@xKenseixX Multiculturalism eventually flows out of Individualism. People with similar habits & style that organically came out of Individualism come together to form a culture. Isn't that what culture is?
And if the nativist folks want their culture preserved, then they need to freakin' do it themselves, and not force others to join in their cultures. Otherwise, the newcomers will be adverse & even rebel against the nativist culture, because their Individualism is being thwarted.
@cleanhomer Assimilating has nothing to do with being yourself, or not being able to do be yourself. It's a natural process of life. Would you move to Germany and force Germans to learn your language? Or would you appreciate your heritage, but still assimilate into a society where you want to live. Your simply stating a fallacy. Individualism isn't a pre-requirement for multi-culturalism to exist. Individualism is about individual rights, not group rights at its core.
@xKenseixX "move to Germany..." I don't know what language has to do with this." Unless specific words involve the culture, you can still practice your culture while speaking a different language. Many- far too many- immigrants to America were forced by social intimidation or violence to assimilate. And too often, the law didn't protect them. So please don't assume that they predominantly, freely assimilated.
@cleanhomer My family was not forced to assimilate by a whip. That type of argument belittles the discussion and is stupid. We're living in 2011, yes? So please don't assume they all were forced and intimidated, thanks.
You can see the destruction clearly in California. Little pockets of illegals from Mexico have taken over areas. The cities have deteriorated. Spanish is dominant and most Americans have moved away. Travel to any of the numerous areas in California to see this fact.
@xKenseixX I'm talking about socially-forced assimilation from decades & centuries past, not this little current pocket of time. And as I've said before, just ENFORCE the immigration laws! Illegal immigration & cultural expression have nothing to do with each other. "most Americans have moved away" Isn't that another occurrence of white-flight?
@cleanhomer So, people have a right to disagree with that occurring. When they see hospitals close and schools have to shift resources, people can disagree with that shift. Why? Because being an individual with rights has nothing to do with the above. Again, people do not move to Germany or Sweden and refuse to assimilate into that country. They do not protest the ways and complain and use their native language instead. Your reference to Ghandi and MLK was beyond stupid and idiotic.
@xKenseixX They might refuse to adopt some new cultural values if too many of their new neighbors are being assholes towards them. I know I would! Why should I have to give into that kind of bullying? Who said anything about protesting the different culture? The immigrants are protesting the rotten treatment by their new society, which is why they'd defy adopting any of the new culture, the way Gandhi defied Britain.
@cleanhomer Just as many do not want to see a extremist Muslim ideology implanted on the local level, or even by use of law. Why? Because you have people in a certain geographical area that have been a certain way for a long time, that are not in conjunction in mindset to that ideology. Is one better than the other? Not my place to decide, because it is irrelevant to the main point I just made. These are not even remotely similar to MLK ect..
@xKenseixX If any of the extremist Muslims break laws- like committing theft, murder, rape- then they'd be punished like any other citizen... provided that the society & justice system sees them as citizens as any other. And if they're surprised they can't do things like force their daughters to marry, they should've thought of that before emigrating to country that recognizes their daughters' equal rights. They can just do two things: go back to where they came from, or accept...
@xKenseixX ...that their daughters have more liberty in their new land. Or they could campaign to change something like gender equality if they want, but that might depend on the success of the extremist Islam they're trying to implant on the surrounding locals. What makes you so sure that the surrounding locals will go along with the extremism? What, you mean one minute, they're all for gender equality, then the next minute, they're not? If they're threatened with violence by the...
@xKenseixX ... extremists, then, again, the law comes back into play to punish the perpetrators & protect the victims. And what makes you think they'll always be extremists, depending on how individual immigrants are treated by their new neighbors? Perhaps most will be friends with their neighbors, and even adopt some of the new values if they content with the values. And the extremism will be less popular, even among the Muslim communities.
@cleanhomer You seem to apply individualism in a broad sense to make what you're saying seem legit, it doesn't. How did all the immigrant that came to the U.S keep their heritage and culture, while also assimilating? Not possible according to you? It's a natural occurrence. When a group specifically attempts to not assimilate out of spite, or change things to their liking while ignoring the laws and ways of that country, that is separate from the topic of individualism entirely.
@xKenseixX WHY do you keep bringing up the law?? The law- civil, human, and property rights- is not the issue here. The issue is free expression, whether individual or cultural. If an individual freely wants to adopt some, or all, or none of their new land's culture, that's entirely their right to do so. And if a group of people want to have a different culture from that around them, that's their right; the individualism of a collective group of individuals. That's multi-culturalism.
@xKenseixX (Sorry, another belated argument) "out of spite" What do you mean, out of spite? If someone is defiantly practicing their free expression rights, or protesting in a peculiar way, you call that spite? Was the Boston Tea Party just being spiteful? Was Gandhi spiteful when he called for boycotts of British goods & even making one's own clothing & salt? Was Martin Luther King spiteful? Were the civil rights "sit-in" protesters spiteful?
@cleanhomer You've shifted way out of the original conversation. Someone can be against multiculturalism in the sense of others coming and pushing a complete take over and change (by what ever means to achieve it) on a local, state or federal level. Yet, still be for individualism. Individualism is not about heritage identity. It's about individual rights. One is an opinion on how they view multiculturalism and other is an ideology to proposes individuals have rights, not groups.
@xKenseixX Why should anyone be boxed into a collection of interests because a gov't thinks it's safer to do so? Even a one-person culture- individualism?- would still be considered culture. And without multiculturalism, that individualism is oppressed. Sure, you can still be individualistic somewhat under some type of tyrannical regime, but it would be discouraged, like it's a bad habit or taboo to truly be yourself, even if it's harmless to others.
No, no, no, no, no! It's much more simple than that (at least in my country). Some gangs that call themselves parties fight every 4/5 years for the right to steal our money. And we are the ones that choose whose turn is next. I still can't understand how we managed to get into EU...
"Charity" is selfish, self-righteous, greedy, condescending God botherers who hate you & think you deserve to burn for eternity in hell, giving you some of their left-overs (often fit only for landfill), calling you evil & blaming you for your hardship, then expecting you to be grateful as they drive their expense cars home to expensive suburbs past their expensive private schools; all paid for by the working class; paid for by YOU. Christian charity is IMMORAL and = buying a ticket 2 "heaven".
In a fair and ethical society, one informed by science and collectivism, there will be no need and no place for "charity". Ultimately the liberation of all individuals means never loosing site of the collective that is family, community, society and our species. Else one individual's liberty will always become another individual's slavery.
WRONG again on the moral precepts of Col. vs. Ind. Individualists are often not concerned with doing good for others or being responsible for the consequences of their actions for others; that's why power and its abusers love individualism; it makes them feel good while they screw over ppl and the planet, helps them blame victims.
Giving a toss about ppl beyond our family or tribe is born of collectivism; of seeing fates as necessarily entwined; it's about inclusion not division & exclusion in the interests of some blameless individual's power. In a real way collectivism respects all individuals, while individualism facilitates the subjugation of many individuals to the interests of a few (Capitlaism, Facism, Stalinism (state capitalism)).
"not about the merits of the actions but the principles" WRONG. Marxist materialism begins with the merits of real world actions and their real world material consequences; that's what sets it apart from old world, right -wing and utopian Left thinking, pre-science politics and epistemology; it really is more scientific then any political theory before it. Marxism and it's spinoffs represent the latest and greatest steps forward in empirically based political thinking.
I sort of came up with my personal view on politics yesterday. That all governments, nations, people in general, should strive for individualism, but to reach it, one can use the methods and goodness of communitarianism. With this possibly unreachable goal would be a balance of a goal, and realistic and adaptive methods of reaching it, which communitarianism offers.
"Here we wish simply to emphasize that in our generation efforts are being made to arrange and control human relationships more consciously than during the last century. An interdependent world is being force to an awareness of the limitations of individual freedom and personal choice."
Dr. Herring President of Social Science Research Councial.
One can pick and choose from either extreme and support your cause. this video seems to only consider the good side of one issue and the bad side (as they see it) of the otherside. For example, since they want equal protection under the law for everyone, if legal services can/must be purchased and paid for then only those with big bucks can get those legal services but if the services were paid equally for everyone then everyone could have equal access under the law.
'You think for yourself.... When i was eight years old defending Stalingrad, I didnt think for myself... When the Motherland asked for our lives, we gave. My father didnt think of himself he gave. My mother didnt think of herself, she gave! My brother didnt think of himself he GAVE! My Comrades tied a rope around my waist and lowered me on top of Nazi Tanks.. i stuffed Molotovs under turret and cannon... and an- they pulled me up again.. 8 YEARS OLD!!!'
Modern individualism is an excuse used by spoiled suburbanite Americans to justify their egotism, greed, and waste.
Collectivism- working together with others and putting the interests of the collective before your own is necessary to put food in your belly and produce the clothes you're wearing. If libertarians had their way, civilization would collapse like a house of cards.
@TheAmericanforJesus The 'truly good people' you speak of are called capitalists. They don't help people- They are bloodsucking parasites.
As for fundamental rights, who cares? Those rights were dreamt up by aristocrats and slave owners- They have no meaning for me.
Also, religion is inherently collectivist. You must have all sorts of cognitive dissonance trying to uphold two contradictory world views at the same time.
For a series supposable devoted to giving people a realistic clear look at politics without the politician BS is sure does basically use "indiviudalism" and "collectivism" in the same ol buzzword expected way, ergo, individualists are good and voluntary and such, collectivists and big involuntary states forcing people to be equal
45 years of rsearch wasted it seems, I mean c'mon..there are anti state collectivists, like syndicalists, and pro big state individualists.
"freedom"? that's just a damn coverall term for "me, me, me, me first" dammit, it's time we grow up and REALIZE that the UNVERSE IS NOT HERE FOR OUR INDIVIDUAL CONVENIENCE! we HAVE TO BE COLLECTIVELY INVOLVED, and in EQUAL MEASURE! i'm sorry this sounds harsh, but the HANDICAPPED/ELDERLY are in the way, then they NEED TO BE SLOUGHED OFF, and allow the younger generations to keep society on track towards acheiving the apex/apogee OF HUMAN CAPABILITY.
@camdaddy09 i know it sounds harsh, but it's the most effective and/or efficient method of keeping human development on a consistent and non-deterred track towards true fulfillment of our creative/technical/intellectual potential. so DEAL WITH IT, or HIDE in your BED and resume your wishful thinking that a magic fairy is going to come and make everything all better.
@NUWtv2 who is to determine what is an effective method of keeping human development on a consistent track towards true fulfillment? whom will this leader be? who will determine what is true fulfillment? the dear leader? the masses? if this ultra democracy existed then you would promptly find yourself out in the gutter where such philosophies will rightly take you, in this society there is no place for people of your caliber of moral bankruptcy. You are the one who believes in a magic the fairy
@camdaddy09 yeah ok, mister"my individualism, MY rights, MY happiness, MY fulfillment, MY satisfaction, MY this, MY that" you see where that's going? INTO THE GUTTER of the SELF-DESTRUCTED FUTURE of civilized society, or havent you noticed how this govt in the US, is starting to allow the decay of society, just like the Roman empire, in its' latter days?
@NUWtv2 yes i see exactly where thats going, to a rationally self interested society. The decline of the roman republic and later empire was caused by socialism, hedonism, and dictatorship; I advocate none of those things.
@camdaddy09 socialism, and POSSIBLY dictatorship can be of positive structural means for a benevolent society, if accountability is STRICTLY ENFORCED. in other words, if corruption starts to unfold, then terminate it QUICKLY and EFFECTIVELY, and that is where the moral/ethical strength of the individual comes in, when it is focused, and is applied throughout peoples' lives.
In 1850 French economist/political scientist Bastiat said that socialists confuse government with society. If we object to a thing being done by government, they say that we object to it being done at all...if we object to government schools, they say that we are objecting to education...etc etc.
We hate them for how they will be, but we hate them because they are very racist with the world ... especially if they are Mexican or Latinos ... or even people of his country to Afro Americans ...
Mexicans and Latinos hate blacks .. On the contrary we believe are the most noble people of this country ...
support not only the white boys who think they are superior, but for his bravery and courage in the world .. are outstanding ...
@matthew00123 You are right, that is exactly what I am doing. Looking at options and ideas and then questioning them to test if they are the true way to freedom or not.
@matthew00123 i'm just trying to point out that even though I agree that we need change, this video series still has a lot of flaws with it. I was hoping to find something that convinces me that individualism is the answer but so far, I can not accept it.
I've thought about this A LOT and I've come to the conclusion that to label countries as individualistic and collectivist is irrational and arrogant. These things are very very complicated. For instance, Russia is often considered a collectivist society, but I see that Russians are very strong, self-sufficient and sneaky in the way that Western people are not. We should ask ourselves "What forms do collectivism and individualism take in this society, what are its strengths and weaknesses".
You are assigning certain principles that are supposedly upheld by individualists. Once you fix the principles for a group of people they then are part of a collective. So you are really comparing two collectives and no individuals. A true individual may select a collectivism principle or an individualism principle depending on the particular case or circumstances.
Individualism is not only completely pathetic, it is also bogus and wrong. Is completely against human nature. Through THOSANDS of years humans were the collective and their true value as humans is in unity and obeying, supporting and caring about social system.
@IoriYagamiKyo Individualism is a bunch of horseshit for moronic teenagers and dishonest yuppis. It was invented really recently, but dumb americans think it is somehow 'natural' or 'basic', while it is a recent capitalist invention to smear your brain with shit. Divide et impera, did you know that?
Individualism is, unfortunately, fact. You cannot possibly get 7 billion people to think like-minded, unless the entire planet is in imminent danger.
Even then, there will be those who disagree on what to do.
Study human nature before saying something's against it. You might be surprised to know that both individualism and collectivism are both hardwired into us.
@laughinfree91392 you are conflating rights and ones ability to do something. Just because I'm capable of doing something, like say, abuse someone, it doesn't mean that its my right to do so. Rights are social constructs created by the community (hence why the video by stopnlook is nonsense) ideally for the benefit of the community and its members, they're not natural rights or pre-existing, pre-political entities.
Rights are not given by the virtue of ones individuality, but they're a product of the individuals relationship with the community. The community is not restricted by any absurd notion of natural laws, because they do not exist, even though you still insist that they do (i.e. "people cant give powers to goverment that they dont themselves have" is a non-existent and arbitary rule).
@Bellator656 Try this one in the world of IT. If your not an administrator (member of a security group with restricted privileges; how can you then create an account that would then supercede your own restrictions?
And yes, in the country of the United States anyway, you are born with rights - by virtue of existing, being there, a person, an individual. You do not however, have the right to take away another persons rights - the other person has the same rights/privileges as you. Equal.
- just to continue - so how can a group of people with equal rights create or become a group that has more power/rights/privileges above others? Or a group (government) that suddenly becomes the source of other peoples rights? Its just supposed to be in place to make sure that others do not do those things. Not preemptively restrict or infringe due to a possibility of it maybe happening in the future, but to take action after evidence of the infraction already being done.
@Nullstorm No one is born with inherent rights. Even the rights granted to infants are strictly political, alienable and dependent on the approval of the community (and hence derived from the collective, not from the virtue of ones own individuality). All rights depend on the violent enforcement of the collective.
I really don't understand your ridiculous IT example. The internet isn't the real world.
Hello! i just have to share a story. earlier today i did a grammar test in english and the teacher asked me to answer some questions. she ended the discussion with "your are a true individualist"
Excellent work. If we are to have any hope of healing the divide, we must illustrate to the common man that he is being lied to by both sides of the Hegelian circus.
Guiding the masses into Communitarian tyranny is the goal of democrats and republicans, labour and conservative alike.
Step outside the dialectic, and destroy tyranny and those who would enslave you.
Andre in Canada - contact me here if you see this. I spoke to you on the phone and referred you to this vid. You can e-mail me at the address that I gave you also.
Andre in Canada - contact me here if you see this. I spoke to you on the phone and referred you to this vid. You may also contact me at the e-mail address that I gave you.
Many individualists fail to see the need to give individuals maximum freedom instead of complete freedom... which creates opportunity for conflict.
Many collectivists fail to see the need to give individuals maximum freedom instead of insufficient freedom... which creates opportunity for conflict.
The most intelligent individuals realize that in order to possess equality under the law, Earth's resources must be utilized toward alleviating the need to work for food.
Our Governments legacy will never be perfection as it is derived for the fallible people by the fallible people, expecting perfection is unreasonable. Therefore; it can only be concluded, the problems you face in your home cannot be solved in the halls of a legislative house. Welcome to the reality of freedom, govern yourself because...
The only circumstance that would cause this country or any other to fall from grace is for individuals to pass their obligations on to their neighbors.
How funny, I just wrote a one page essay on individualism vs collectivism. It is part of a project being done by a group of small business owners called the pillars of freedom. I guess I am not so original after all.
any chance losing the music. such a pity you were so good at explaining what you wanted to say.. then you go and put a totally inappropriate background noise on? ah well.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is right-wing propaganda disguised as unbiased discussion and analysis. From the website of FreedomForceInternational:
"...what they believe, what ideology they hold. Their ideology has a name. Its called collectivism, a concept that government is master and people must obey."
This is touted at the complete exclusion of any anarchist, libertarian-socialist, or otherwise Stateless or nearly Stateless collectivist point of view. To disagree is one thing. This garbage is just pure slant.
@egolayer13 : Your right, this is touted as the exclusion of collectivism... IT IS. But you then claim this is pure garbage without even a hint at substance or logic. Yours is a purely reactionary stance, without thought to back it. Your a hypocrite by your own mouth, because when it comes to be your time to be 'sacrificed' for the greater good, your voice will be loudest in denouncing the very premise of collectivism: That individuals be sacrificed for their neighbors good, willing or not...
@indefiance24 Belated response here, but maybe better late than never... I made a perfectly clear point, which is that the argument being made in this DVD turns a completely blind eye to the libertarian socialist, sometimes referred to as anarchist, viewpoint. To say that individualism and collectivism are mutually exclusive without taking the time to address an ideology that strikes a balance between the two *is* slanted.
And at the risk of sounding pedantic, it's you're*, not your.
How about an even more belated response:You're (<--Got it right this time) correct to point out that anarchism is a valid interpretation of individualism. I've updated my thinking on this. Minarchist's have the unlucky untenable position of saying government is evil and then immediately contradicting themselves by saying, except for this one little bit over here...The Non-aggression principle if a true axiom demands logical consistency not contradictions.
That isn't a bad way to define the choice in broad terms. But, it is incorrect to equate collectivism with STO, or to equate individualism with STS. Collectivism is a disservice---NOT a service---to others, because it operates by infringing upon the individual rights of everyone. And, if everyone in society is merely considered part of the collective state, then ANY service rendered to anyone will in essence be service to the collective state---as such, the state would be collectively in STS.
A society erring heavily toward individualistic STS (e.g., America) can indeed foster a reaction which offers a collectivist solution. But collectivism, under the guise of promoting the "good of the whole," only compounds the error by replacing individualistic STS with a collectivist STS. Ideally, society should strive for individualistic STO, which maintains the individual's choice of whom to serve. Collectivism isn't a choice at all, because it removes that choice, forcing all to conform.
Lol, indeed! I think we've distilled it down to debating the question of which came first, collectivism or STS? And maybe that's a distinction without a difference! I've enjoyed the banter :)
This is a great video, BUT I must object to the bit where all the tall figures in the "Equality Under the Law" blurb are all white. I mean come on, whoever designed this has to know it's going to piss people off unnecessarily, and alienate everyone who isn't white or who isn't a white supremacist. Thanks to that error, I can't share this video with anyone. If it ever gets amended, please let me know.
Speaking for all the 'blue' people I agree!!lol!! We blues, greens and oranges must unite against the evil white stick figures!! Lmfao!! Give in to the 'collectivism!
Your objection perpetuates the supposed bias which you are so quick to criticize! What makes you think the characteristic of being tall denotes superiority? Are you implying that short people are inferior?
Don't obscure the video's true intent by interjecting it with subjective politically correct BS.
Within the context of the visual metaphor the video's author set up, it is clear that height represents some kind of superiority, regardless of whether it does in real life.
Politically correct BS pisses me off as much as anyone, but in a political environment where libertarians are falsely pigeonholed in with white supremacists, it's prudent to refrain from appearing to invoke color sentiments by showing the low as dark and the high as white.
Although I didn't personally interpret the visual that way, I understand your point. But, I think yielding to the demands of whining PC'ers only encourages them to whine even louder. It's like a beast: the more you feed it, then more it grows; and the more it grows, the more you gotta feed it.
And I see your point too, but I think this is far from yielding to their demands. You don't have to be a whining PC'er to feel singled out based on your race. And even more than those racial stereotypes, I'm worried about the video perpetuating the "racist individualist" stereotype on ourselves.
Feeding the PC beast would be more like changing the words you use to refer to minorities every 6 months as they always get offended by each new one...
I agree, the music is too loud and is actually a distraction. I think people making these videos need to make up their mind where they want the audience attention to be. Do they want to entertain me with music, or tell me a story. Plain and simple...
Read the five part series upon which this video is based. It's called The Future Is Calling at TheEndRun . com under the links section. Possibly the best concise overview of "The New World Order" in existence using the globalists' own words to explain it, with sources.
I always did conceder all those "right wing, left wing, republican, democrat, etc. just a crock of manor. I'm an individualist and thanks for pointing that out to me.
"Collectivists" aka socialists are learning disabled, they can't learn from history. The obvious fact that eludes their comprehension is that all rights are individual in nature. You cannot have group "rights", it's a silly concept.
Well I hope Individualists aka Conservatives learn from this recession, the idea that you can just let the markets do what they want has finally been proved wrong.
Where do you get that BS? This mess was created by government butting in and trying to manipulate and interfere with free markets. Ever hear of the Community Reinvestment Act? The free market does well when government stays out of it.
So if your house was torched by arsonists and is burning, you think asking arsonists to pour gas on it will help? If you want to create jobs get government out of the way. What do you think would happen is tomorrow government declared Detroit a tax free business zone, and free of all regulations propping up unions, free of minimum wage laws, and paid no Social Security or unemployment taxes? Unemployment in Detroit would be near zero in under a month.
I don't see why people are so reluctant to admit that Government intervention is not needed when the market fails.
What the minimum wage did was help people get back into work, creating 1 million jobs and making people realize that they will no longer come second to profits.
When you say something as stupid like ' the minimum wage created jobs', you should expect ridicule. And if you understood anything your know that the government intervention that caused the problem is obviously not the solution to the problem.
But when the minimum wage was introduced people went out and looked for work, because they knew it was more difficult for greedy employers to exploit them.
Government intervention solved the problem - the market needed it otherwise it would have collapsed!
And btw, there's a difference between ridicule and sheer immaturity.
Come on, you are kidding, right? You can't be that stupid! Increasing the cost of labor is like anything else, it causes people to buy less of it. Besides, if the people weren't looking for work then they aren't unemployed, they were just bums. If we let them get hungry enough, then they'll develop a work ethic.
Well I don't know what planet youve been on but for the last year, most of us have been going through a global economic recession.
Government intervention was needed and the view that you can just let the markets take control of themselves with unlimited powers is simply ridiculous and is one of the reasons we are in this mess!
On earth, it's government that caused the recession. Using your logic, government should make more food available to people by putting minimum prices on it and hiking it frequently to make it as expensive as possible so more people would want to sell it.
Government is absolutely to blame! The socialist scams a relentless taxing and spending and then borrowing to spend even more, plus anti-constitutional leftist social programming is what created these messes.
You can't blame the conservatives. Conservatives haven't had control of anything in government since well before WWII. Only the very ignorant would consider republicans conservative.
You are so reluctant yo accept that the market had failed aren't you?
The Government intervened to save the market and banks that would have otherwise collapsed.
Listen, lower taxes for everyone simply isn't the answer and with Conservatives it's a disguise to actually make the rich pay less, we saw it 30 years ago and if Cameron gets his way, we'll see spending cuts in benefits to fund a high earners tax break.
Oh! I see! You don't care about reality or the markets of freedom, you just want to stick it to rich people who are evil! Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. If you ever get an education you'll see how stupid that kind of thinking is. You can't make poor people better off by punishing success. The top 10% pay most of the taxes already, the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing. Who's not paying their fair share? Cutting taxes helps everyone, even if it offends jealous bums.
Paying their fair share? What do you want? Taxes of those who are benefit dependent? Damm right the rich should pay more taxes, that's only fair.
It's not a punishment of success, it's sharing the wealth, what part of that don't you understand? Rich people aren't evil at all, I never said that, I do say they should be taxed more - I think that is only fair and obvious, your starting to sound a bit like Thatcher, do you agree with a flat tax?
The great thing about freedom is that you are free to share your wealth. You are not free to share what doesn't belong to you. You socialist parrots just cannot stand the ide of others being free. You can't bear to watch others succeed, so when they work twice as much as you for years and finally get somewhere in life, you want to tear them down over your twisted 5 year old's view of "fairness". Taxes on income should be flat... flat ZERO percent.
The great thing about your so called "freedom" is that it allows an elite to rip others dreams and ambitions to shreds, it allows a group at the top of society to exploit and mismanage the rest of society.
"Fairness" I don't see how that's a five year olds view, after all 54% of Brits still prefer the collectivist system.
People who think like 5 year olds don't see it. Little kids don't earn what they get, they see the world as full of stuff that everyone is entitled too without regard to work. They think anyone who has more is being selfish, they don't understand that some people save and invest and work more to have more. People like you think you are entitled to the fruits of others hard work. You don't see that it is you who is selfish.
And what difference does it make how many think what? In a free society, majority rule is a joke, a system for 5 year olds to "play fair". Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. I prefer a constitutional republic where any man if free to tell the majority to screw themselves, and his rights remain protected. If 54% of the Brits want to be slaves, let them sell themselves to the other 46%.
Well I don't think a man being able to tell everyone else to screw themselves is exactly democratic.
The things is, your definition of democracy only works and favors the elite at the top of society, we need a system where all voices are herd and the working class get a say.
This has been flagged as spam show
Why be biased? If you're right then it'll be obvious. You're wrong though.
WasteTimeChasinShots 3 months ago
This is pretty much biased bullshit, individualism can be just as responsible for as much destruction and oppression as any collectivist regime, one just has to look at the systemic violence that occurs everyday in a modern capitalist "democracy". At the moment the free market looks as if it could be responsible for the destruction of countless livelihoods across the globe.
almanacofsleep 4 months ago
@almanacofsleep Too bad that holds no base value. We don't have have free markets. Fact. Corporatism, government interventionism and keynesian inflationism in the U.S for example, is not free market capitalism. Democracy is another fallacy. Democracy's always lead to fascism, which is the why, for example, the U.S was based on a constitutional republic. Free markets had nothing to do with the global economic issues. There isn't a single fact to back that assertion.
xKenseixX 2 months ago
@almanacofsleep If you want to understand an issue, you have to stop being ignorant. Apply a label such as free markets and targeting it towards an economic down turn, because you read it on some hippy website, doesn't make it true.
The point is, individualism is the foundation of rights that individuals have. Compared to a mentality that rights are packaged in groups, formed by government that they can label. Individualism is the foundation for liberty. So much biased stuff, right...
xKenseixX 2 months ago
When looking a bit at Norway shooter Breivik's writings, I notice in one his blogs, he supports individualism, but he of course, is loudly against multiculturalism.
But I wonder: how can you be against multiculturalism, but be for individualism? Isn't multiculti- the right to practice one's culture as one law-abidingly sees fit- a part OF individualism?
I don't ask this of Breivik, because he's obviously a lunatic, but of people calling him a hero (which churns my stomach!).
cleanhomer 4 months ago
@cleanhomer He also was for a ton of other crazy shit that contradicted each other. A psycho is a psycho. I can't call myself a libertarian, than claim that we should keep marijuana illegal and ban raw milk, because I claim it's not good for you. The concept of libertarians still remains true, regardless of how I twist it. Multiculturalism stems into another group of thinking. As an individual, you have rights. It's irrelevant to the pro/con of multiculturalism.
xKenseixX 2 months ago
@xKenseixX But without multiculturalism, you can't really have the opportunity to be yourself, to let your individualism flourish. It remains stuck, by the law of the land, under a nationalistic, fascist, etc. ideologue. I mean, what exactly is culture anyways? A collection of traditions, dress, food, holidays, literature, etc. that a certain group of people share. And don't individual people have interests that sway even a little bit away from the group, even if it's harmless interest?
cleanhomer 2 months ago
@cleanhomer Peoples views on multiculturalism is irrelevant. Individuals have certain unalienable rights, that can't be stripped by the whims of government or a majority. People are against multiculturalism in the sense of one group taking over an area rich with history and changing it. Like California. Illegals made up mostly of Mexicans have taken over many cities, not assimilated or even learned English and just stick in their little pods. A person can be for individualism, yet still dislike
xKenseixX 1 month ago
@xKenseixX "not assimilated"? So, you're saying individualism cannot be for those who are the minority in the region. They have to assimilate- not truly be themselves- in order to make the bigger group more comfortable. How about simply enforcing immigration law on the individuals braking that law (including businesses that exploit those individuals)? Persons can honestly be culturally Mexican if they want, even if others disagree.
cleanhomer 1 month ago
@cleanhomer the affects of a massive group of people changing the make up of the region. Multiculturalism isn't a requirement to be yourself. If this was the case, how can those who were a majority with rich culture, who are now a minority to Muslims let's say for example, be themselves? You can turn it around and look at it exactly the same.
You have god give/natural rights. Irrelevant to those who would like to see their culture and area preserved.
xKenseixX 1 month ago
@xKenseixX Multiculturalism eventually flows out of Individualism. People with similar habits & style that organically came out of Individualism come together to form a culture. Isn't that what culture is?
And if the nativist folks want their culture preserved, then they need to freakin' do it themselves, and not force others to join in their cultures. Otherwise, the newcomers will be adverse & even rebel against the nativist culture, because their Individualism is being thwarted.
cleanhomer 1 month ago
@cleanhomer Assimilating has nothing to do with being yourself, or not being able to do be yourself. It's a natural process of life. Would you move to Germany and force Germans to learn your language? Or would you appreciate your heritage, but still assimilate into a society where you want to live. Your simply stating a fallacy. Individualism isn't a pre-requirement for multi-culturalism to exist. Individualism is about individual rights, not group rights at its core.
xKenseixX 1 month ago
@xKenseixX "move to Germany..." I don't know what language has to do with this." Unless specific words involve the culture, you can still practice your culture while speaking a different language. Many- far too many- immigrants to America were forced by social intimidation or violence to assimilate. And too often, the law didn't protect them. So please don't assume that they predominantly, freely assimilated.
cleanhomer 1 month ago
@cleanhomer My family was not forced to assimilate by a whip. That type of argument belittles the discussion and is stupid. We're living in 2011, yes? So please don't assume they all were forced and intimidated, thanks.
You can see the destruction clearly in California. Little pockets of illegals from Mexico have taken over areas. The cities have deteriorated. Spanish is dominant and most Americans have moved away. Travel to any of the numerous areas in California to see this fact.
xKenseixX 1 month ago
@xKenseixX I'm talking about socially-forced assimilation from decades & centuries past, not this little current pocket of time. And as I've said before, just ENFORCE the immigration laws! Illegal immigration & cultural expression have nothing to do with each other. "most Americans have moved away" Isn't that another occurrence of white-flight?
cleanhomer 1 month ago
@cleanhomer So, people have a right to disagree with that occurring. When they see hospitals close and schools have to shift resources, people can disagree with that shift. Why? Because being an individual with rights has nothing to do with the above. Again, people do not move to Germany or Sweden and refuse to assimilate into that country. They do not protest the ways and complain and use their native language instead. Your reference to Ghandi and MLK was beyond stupid and idiotic.
xKenseixX 1 month ago
@xKenseixX They might refuse to adopt some new cultural values if too many of their new neighbors are being assholes towards them. I know I would! Why should I have to give into that kind of bullying? Who said anything about protesting the different culture? The immigrants are protesting the rotten treatment by their new society, which is why they'd defy adopting any of the new culture, the way Gandhi defied Britain.
cleanhomer 1 month ago
@cleanhomer Just as many do not want to see a extremist Muslim ideology implanted on the local level, or even by use of law. Why? Because you have people in a certain geographical area that have been a certain way for a long time, that are not in conjunction in mindset to that ideology. Is one better than the other? Not my place to decide, because it is irrelevant to the main point I just made. These are not even remotely similar to MLK ect..
xKenseixX 1 month ago
@xKenseixX If any of the extremist Muslims break laws- like committing theft, murder, rape- then they'd be punished like any other citizen... provided that the society & justice system sees them as citizens as any other. And if they're surprised they can't do things like force their daughters to marry, they should've thought of that before emigrating to country that recognizes their daughters' equal rights. They can just do two things: go back to where they came from, or accept...
cleanhomer 1 month ago
@xKenseixX ...that their daughters have more liberty in their new land. Or they could campaign to change something like gender equality if they want, but that might depend on the success of the extremist Islam they're trying to implant on the surrounding locals. What makes you so sure that the surrounding locals will go along with the extremism? What, you mean one minute, they're all for gender equality, then the next minute, they're not? If they're threatened with violence by the...
cleanhomer 1 month ago
@xKenseixX ... extremists, then, again, the law comes back into play to punish the perpetrators & protect the victims. And what makes you think they'll always be extremists, depending on how individual immigrants are treated by their new neighbors? Perhaps most will be friends with their neighbors, and even adopt some of the new values if they content with the values. And the extremism will be less popular, even among the Muslim communities.
cleanhomer 1 month ago
@cleanhomer You seem to apply individualism in a broad sense to make what you're saying seem legit, it doesn't. How did all the immigrant that came to the U.S keep their heritage and culture, while also assimilating? Not possible according to you? It's a natural occurrence. When a group specifically attempts to not assimilate out of spite, or change things to their liking while ignoring the laws and ways of that country, that is separate from the topic of individualism entirely.
xKenseixX 1 month ago
@xKenseixX WHY do you keep bringing up the law?? The law- civil, human, and property rights- is not the issue here. The issue is free expression, whether individual or cultural. If an individual freely wants to adopt some, or all, or none of their new land's culture, that's entirely their right to do so. And if a group of people want to have a different culture from that around them, that's their right; the individualism of a collective group of individuals. That's multi-culturalism.
cleanhomer 1 month ago
@xKenseixX (Sorry, another belated argument) "out of spite" What do you mean, out of spite? If someone is defiantly practicing their free expression rights, or protesting in a peculiar way, you call that spite? Was the Boston Tea Party just being spiteful? Was Gandhi spiteful when he called for boycotts of British goods & even making one's own clothing & salt? Was Martin Luther King spiteful? Were the civil rights "sit-in" protesters spiteful?
cleanhomer 1 month ago
@cleanhomer You've shifted way out of the original conversation. Someone can be against multiculturalism in the sense of others coming and pushing a complete take over and change (by what ever means to achieve it) on a local, state or federal level. Yet, still be for individualism. Individualism is not about heritage identity. It's about individual rights. One is an opinion on how they view multiculturalism and other is an ideology to proposes individuals have rights, not groups.
xKenseixX 1 month ago
@xKenseixX Why should anyone be boxed into a collection of interests because a gov't thinks it's safer to do so? Even a one-person culture- individualism?- would still be considered culture. And without multiculturalism, that individualism is oppressed. Sure, you can still be individualistic somewhat under some type of tyrannical regime, but it would be discouraged, like it's a bad habit or taboo to truly be yourself, even if it's harmless to others.
cleanhomer 2 months ago
I think that colletivism and invidualism is the same thing.
5nereus 5 months ago
nationalism, invidualism, competetivism and science&research is the way of the future.
5nereus 5 months ago
No, no, no, no, no! It's much more simple than that (at least in my country). Some gangs that call themselves parties fight every 4/5 years for the right to steal our money. And we are the ones that choose whose turn is next. I still can't understand how we managed to get into EU...
cocogloriabz 5 months ago
@cocogloriabz if I were you I would be trying to get ou of the EU
danbuck333 3 months ago
"Charity" is selfish, self-righteous, greedy, condescending God botherers who hate you & think you deserve to burn for eternity in hell, giving you some of their left-overs (often fit only for landfill), calling you evil & blaming you for your hardship, then expecting you to be grateful as they drive their expense cars home to expensive suburbs past their expensive private schools; all paid for by the working class; paid for by YOU. Christian charity is IMMORAL and = buying a ticket 2 "heaven".
Tuathalful 6 months ago
Comment removed
Tuathalful 6 months ago
In a fair and ethical society, one informed by science and collectivism, there will be no need and no place for "charity". Ultimately the liberation of all individuals means never loosing site of the collective that is family, community, society and our species. Else one individual's liberty will always become another individual's slavery.
Tuathalful 6 months ago
WRONG again on the moral precepts of Col. vs. Ind. Individualists are often not concerned with doing good for others or being responsible for the consequences of their actions for others; that's why power and its abusers love individualism; it makes them feel good while they screw over ppl and the planet, helps them blame victims.
Tuathalful 6 months ago
Giving a toss about ppl beyond our family or tribe is born of collectivism; of seeing fates as necessarily entwined; it's about inclusion not division & exclusion in the interests of some blameless individual's power. In a real way collectivism respects all individuals, while individualism facilitates the subjugation of many individuals to the interests of a few (Capitlaism, Facism, Stalinism (state capitalism)).
Tuathalful 6 months ago
"not about the merits of the actions but the principles" WRONG. Marxist materialism begins with the merits of real world actions and their real world material consequences; that's what sets it apart from old world, right -wing and utopian Left thinking, pre-science politics and epistemology; it really is more scientific then any political theory before it. Marxism and it's spinoffs represent the latest and greatest steps forward in empirically based political thinking.
Tuathalful 6 months ago
Good to see fellow Aussies defending Liberty. :)
LibertarianChristian 9 months ago
@LibertarianChristian Aussies For Ron Paul!!!
Dariuszdavi 7 months ago 6
@Dariuszdavi woo!
LibertarianChristian 7 months ago
@LibertarianChristian dude what's your name?
Dariuszdavi 7 months ago
I sort of came up with my personal view on politics yesterday. That all governments, nations, people in general, should strive for individualism, but to reach it, one can use the methods and goodness of communitarianism. With this possibly unreachable goal would be a balance of a goal, and realistic and adaptive methods of reaching it, which communitarianism offers.
Kan2209 10 months ago
"Here we wish simply to emphasize that in our generation efforts are being made to arrange and control human relationships more consciously than during the last century. An interdependent world is being force to an awareness of the limitations of individual freedom and personal choice."
Dr. Herring President of Social Science Research Councial.
Good Video
apocolypse11 11 months ago
One can pick and choose from either extreme and support your cause. this video seems to only consider the good side of one issue and the bad side (as they see it) of the otherside. For example, since they want equal protection under the law for everyone, if legal services can/must be purchased and paid for then only those with big bucks can get those legal services but if the services were paid equally for everyone then everyone could have equal access under the law.
45joebob 1 year ago
heres a gd one for ya, COLECTIVE-INDIVIDUALISM
bigchiefv 1 year ago
IM NOT TALKING ABOUT KILLING OTHER HUMANS, that ISNT POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION to the collective good.
NUWtv2 1 year ago
'You think for yourself.... When i was eight years old defending Stalingrad, I didnt think for myself... When the Motherland asked for our lives, we gave. My father didnt think of himself he gave. My mother didnt think of herself, she gave! My brother didnt think of himself he GAVE! My Comrades tied a rope around my waist and lowered me on top of Nazi Tanks.. i stuffed Molotovs under turret and cannon... and an- they pulled me up again.. 8 YEARS OLD!!!'
InfantryFodder93 1 year ago
SLIPPERY SLOPE MOTHERFUCKA FALLACY DO YOU SPEAK IT
iglooville 1 year ago
The background music makes this video unbearable.
72grose 1 year ago 2
Modern individualism is an excuse used by spoiled suburbanite Americans to justify their egotism, greed, and waste.
Collectivism- working together with others and putting the interests of the collective before your own is necessary to put food in your belly and produce the clothes you're wearing. If libertarians had their way, civilization would collapse like a house of cards.
misterelsh 1 year ago
@misterelsh Modern individualism is the freedom though that allows the truly good people in life the ability to give and help those in need.
Collectivism sounds good but there is no way the government can force people to work together without stripping away our fundamental rights.
TheAmericanforJesus 1 year ago
@TheAmericanforJesus The 'truly good people' you speak of are called capitalists. They don't help people- They are bloodsucking parasites.
As for fundamental rights, who cares? Those rights were dreamt up by aristocrats and slave owners- They have no meaning for me.
Also, religion is inherently collectivist. You must have all sorts of cognitive dissonance trying to uphold two contradictory world views at the same time.
misterelsh 1 year ago
@TheAmericanforJesus that quality can be employed in the collective mindset, if it is instilled in youngsters, and NOT allowed to be forgotten.
NUWtv2 1 year ago
For a series supposable devoted to giving people a realistic clear look at politics without the politician BS is sure does basically use "indiviudalism" and "collectivism" in the same ol buzzword expected way, ergo, individualists are good and voluntary and such, collectivists and big involuntary states forcing people to be equal
45 years of rsearch wasted it seems, I mean c'mon..there are anti state collectivists, like syndicalists, and pro big state individualists.
garbage
Aeon135 1 year ago
Just finished watching them all. MOST EXCELLENT and RIGHT ON!
God Bless you for posting this and I hope that more folks will LEARN the difference and understand the TRUTH!
RememberPaulRevere 1 year ago
You give too much credit to the collectivists. They don't want what's best for themselves and their families. They are only motivated to destroy.
iflyboats 1 year ago
Comment removed
NUWtv2 1 year ago
"freedom"? that's just a damn coverall term for "me, me, me, me first" dammit, it's time we grow up and REALIZE that the UNVERSE IS NOT HERE FOR OUR INDIVIDUAL CONVENIENCE! we HAVE TO BE COLLECTIVELY INVOLVED, and in EQUAL MEASURE! i'm sorry this sounds harsh, but the HANDICAPPED/ELDERLY are in the way, then they NEED TO BE SLOUGHED OFF, and allow the younger generations to keep society on track towards acheiving the apex/apogee OF HUMAN CAPABILITY.
NUWtv2 1 year ago
@NUWtv2 you are a philosophical monstrosity, you sir are the one that needs to be "sloughed off"
camdaddy09 1 year ago
@camdaddy09 i know it sounds harsh, but it's the most effective and/or efficient method of keeping human development on a consistent and non-deterred track towards true fulfillment of our creative/technical/intellectual potential. so DEAL WITH IT, or HIDE in your BED and resume your wishful thinking that a magic fairy is going to come and make everything all better.
NUWtv2 1 year ago
@NUWtv2 who is to determine what is an effective method of keeping human development on a consistent track towards true fulfillment? whom will this leader be? who will determine what is true fulfillment? the dear leader? the masses? if this ultra democracy existed then you would promptly find yourself out in the gutter where such philosophies will rightly take you, in this society there is no place for people of your caliber of moral bankruptcy. You are the one who believes in a magic the fairy
camdaddy09 1 year ago
@camdaddy09 yeah ok, mister"my individualism, MY rights, MY happiness, MY fulfillment, MY satisfaction, MY this, MY that" you see where that's going? INTO THE GUTTER of the SELF-DESTRUCTED FUTURE of civilized society, or havent you noticed how this govt in the US, is starting to allow the decay of society, just like the Roman empire, in its' latter days?
NUWtv2 1 year ago
@NUWtv2 yes i see exactly where thats going, to a rationally self interested society. The decline of the roman republic and later empire was caused by socialism, hedonism, and dictatorship; I advocate none of those things.
camdaddy09 1 year ago
@camdaddy09 socialism, and POSSIBLY dictatorship can be of positive structural means for a benevolent society, if accountability is STRICTLY ENFORCED. in other words, if corruption starts to unfold, then terminate it QUICKLY and EFFECTIVELY, and that is where the moral/ethical strength of the individual comes in, when it is focused, and is applied throughout peoples' lives.
NUWtv2 1 year ago
In 1850 French economist/political scientist Bastiat said that socialists confuse government with society. If we object to a thing being done by government, they say that we object to it being done at all...if we object to government schools, they say that we are objecting to education...etc etc.
jscottupton 1 year ago 16
@jscottupton If object to the ridiculous military campaigns of the state we're accused of not supporting the troops... The right wing does it too.
Distortion0 5 months ago
Please redo this without music or with music at a MUCH lower volume
jscottupton 1 year ago
@jscottupton mute button....
MrSkate4weed 1 year ago
sorry if I offended some afroamerican ..
use a translator ...
jorgeleon18 1 year ago
the world hates ..
one thing .. you are not the most powerful in the world ... or will be but it is in France and England, who always saved the ass of everything ...
jorgeleon18 1 year ago
We hate them for how they will be, but we hate them because they are very racist with the world ... especially if they are Mexican or Latinos ... or even people of his country to Afro Americans ...
Mexicans and Latinos hate blacks .. On the contrary we believe are the most noble people of this country ...
support not only the white boys who think they are superior, but for his bravery and courage in the world .. are outstanding ...
Afro Americans want them ...
jorgeleon18 1 year ago
@matthew00123 You are right, that is exactly what I am doing. Looking at options and ideas and then questioning them to test if they are the true way to freedom or not.
bbrraadddddd 1 year ago
@matthew00123 i'm just trying to point out that even though I agree that we need change, this video series still has a lot of flaws with it. I was hoping to find something that convinces me that individualism is the answer but so far, I can not accept it.
bbrraadddddd 1 year ago
@matthew00123 How would we become and individualist state? By force or vote?
bbrraadddddd 1 year ago
I've thought about this A LOT and I've come to the conclusion that to label countries as individualistic and collectivist is irrational and arrogant. These things are very very complicated. For instance, Russia is often considered a collectivist society, but I see that Russians are very strong, self-sufficient and sneaky in the way that Western people are not. We should ask ourselves "What forms do collectivism and individualism take in this society, what are its strengths and weaknesses".
RussianBarbarian 1 year ago
If a group agrees on a set of rules so that there can be peace in that group, isn't that collectivism? That is a good thing isn't it?
bbrraadddddd 1 year ago
You are assigning certain principles that are supposedly upheld by individualists. Once you fix the principles for a group of people they then are part of a collective. So you are really comparing two collectives and no individuals. A true individual may select a collectivism principle or an individualism principle depending on the particular case or circumstances.
freedomphilosophy 1 year ago
Individualism is not only completely pathetic, it is also bogus and wrong. Is completely against human nature. Through THOSANDS of years humans were the collective and their true value as humans is in unity and obeying, supporting and caring about social system.
IoriYagamiKyo 1 year ago
@IoriYagamiKyo Individualism is a bunch of horseshit for moronic teenagers and dishonest yuppis. It was invented really recently, but dumb americans think it is somehow 'natural' or 'basic', while it is a recent capitalist invention to smear your brain with shit. Divide et impera, did you know that?
IoriYagamiKyo 1 year ago
@IoriYagamiKyo ?????
Hu...h?? O....K...
Individualism sort of has been around since collectivism.
Insects are collectives. We have minds. We are individuals.
Give a group certain rights as a collective- well OK then. Just remembe individuals are in that collective.
You're not a bug, are you?
TourettesSomething 1 year ago
@IoriYagamiKyo uh.... O...K...
Individualism is, unfortunately, fact. You cannot possibly get 7 billion people to think like-minded, unless the entire planet is in imminent danger.
Even then, there will be those who disagree on what to do.
Study human nature before saying something's against it. You might be surprised to know that both individualism and collectivism are both hardwired into us.
TourettesSomething 1 year ago 2
Collectivism FTW (Fucks The World)
Tyler4981 1 year ago
Rights are not granted to us by the community
rdshgs 1 year ago
@laughinfree91392 you are conflating rights and ones ability to do something. Just because I'm capable of doing something, like say, abuse someone, it doesn't mean that its my right to do so. Rights are social constructs created by the community (hence why the video by stopnlook is nonsense) ideally for the benefit of the community and its members, they're not natural rights or pre-existing, pre-political entities.
Bellator656 1 year ago
Nice itro I will watch the rest of this series.
BrutusCass 1 year ago
Rights are not given by the virtue of ones individuality, but they're a product of the individuals relationship with the community. The community is not restricted by any absurd notion of natural laws, because they do not exist, even though you still insist that they do (i.e. "people cant give powers to goverment that they dont themselves have" is a non-existent and arbitary rule).
Bellator656 1 year ago
@Bellator656 Try this one in the world of IT. If your not an administrator (member of a security group with restricted privileges; how can you then create an account that would then supercede your own restrictions?
And yes, in the country of the United States anyway, you are born with rights - by virtue of existing, being there, a person, an individual. You do not however, have the right to take away another persons rights - the other person has the same rights/privileges as you. Equal.
Nullstorm 1 year ago
- just to continue - so how can a group of people with equal rights create or become a group that has more power/rights/privileges above others? Or a group (government) that suddenly becomes the source of other peoples rights? Its just supposed to be in place to make sure that others do not do those things. Not preemptively restrict or infringe due to a possibility of it maybe happening in the future, but to take action after evidence of the infraction already being done.
Nullstorm 1 year ago
@Nullstorm No one is born with inherent rights. Even the rights granted to infants are strictly political, alienable and dependent on the approval of the community (and hence derived from the collective, not from the virtue of ones own individuality). All rights depend on the violent enforcement of the collective.
I really don't understand your ridiculous IT example. The internet isn't the real world.
Bellator656 1 year ago
Fantastic Video!
Bravo!
More revealing info here:
w w w . constitutionalvoices. org/bloggers/freedomblogger2/?p=1416
((((((((((((DELETE THE SPACES)))))))))))
CaJeffO 1 year ago
Hello! i just have to share a story. earlier today i did a grammar test in english and the teacher asked me to answer some questions. she ended the discussion with "your are a true individualist"
saammuel1 1 year ago
Excellent work. If we are to have any hope of healing the divide, we must illustrate to the common man that he is being lied to by both sides of the Hegelian circus.
Guiding the masses into Communitarian tyranny is the goal of democrats and republicans, labour and conservative alike.
Step outside the dialectic, and destroy tyranny and those who would enslave you.
webfulcrum 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Andre in Canada - contact me here if you see this. I spoke to you on the phone and referred you to this vid. You can e-mail me at the address that I gave you also.
steelenvelvet 1 year ago
Andre in Canada - contact me here if you see this. I spoke to you on the phone and referred you to this vid. You may also contact me at the e-mail address that I gave you.
steelenvelvet 1 year ago
Andrea in Canada - contact me here if you see this. I spoke to you over the phone and referred you to this video.
steelenvelvet 1 year ago
It is the non-egalitarian distribution of Earth's resources that leads toward centralization.
GavinPalmer1984 1 year ago
Many individualists fail to see the need to give individuals maximum freedom instead of complete freedom... which creates opportunity for conflict.
Many collectivists fail to see the need to give individuals maximum freedom instead of insufficient freedom... which creates opportunity for conflict.
The most intelligent individuals realize that in order to possess equality under the law, Earth's resources must be utilized toward alleviating the need to work for food.
GavinPalmer1984 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Our Governments legacy will never be perfection as it is derived for the fallible people by the fallible people, expecting perfection is unreasonable. Therefore; it can only be concluded, the problems you face in your home cannot be solved in the halls of a legislative house. Welcome to the reality of freedom, govern yourself because...
The only circumstance that would cause this country or any other to fall from grace is for individuals to pass their obligations on to their neighbors.
BradLauber 1 year ago
To live , free like a tree and collective like a forest...
KerickOrland 1 year ago
How funny, I just wrote a one page essay on individualism vs collectivism. It is part of a project being done by a group of small business owners called the pillars of freedom. I guess I am not so original after all.
shadowcii 1 year ago
The music really distracts from the message. Please consider reducing the level of music it would be much better. Otherwise well done.
Sidewinder747 1 year ago
any chance losing the music. such a pity you were so good at explaining what you wanted to say.. then you go and put a totally inappropriate background noise on? ah well.
Juicer63 2 years ago
Too bad the music sucks so much. I would have been interested in watching this had I not been so turned off by the background noise
allowacan 2 years ago
Collectivism & Altruism are fucking evil.
MiraMorningstar 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is right-wing propaganda disguised as unbiased discussion and analysis. From the website of FreedomForceInternational:
"...what they believe, what ideology they hold. Their ideology has a name. Its called collectivism, a concept that government is master and people must obey."
This is touted at the complete exclusion of any anarchist, libertarian-socialist, or otherwise Stateless or nearly Stateless collectivist point of view. To disagree is one thing. This garbage is just pure slant.
egolayer13 2 years ago
@egolayer13 : Your right, this is touted as the exclusion of collectivism... IT IS. But you then claim this is pure garbage without even a hint at substance or logic. Yours is a purely reactionary stance, without thought to back it. Your a hypocrite by your own mouth, because when it comes to be your time to be 'sacrificed' for the greater good, your voice will be loudest in denouncing the very premise of collectivism: That individuals be sacrificed for their neighbors good, willing or not...
indefiance24 2 years ago 12
@indefiance24 Belated response here, but maybe better late than never... I made a perfectly clear point, which is that the argument being made in this DVD turns a completely blind eye to the libertarian socialist, sometimes referred to as anarchist, viewpoint. To say that individualism and collectivism are mutually exclusive without taking the time to address an ideology that strikes a balance between the two *is* slanted.
And at the risk of sounding pedantic, it's you're*, not your.
egolayer13 1 year ago
@egolayer13 :
How about an even more belated response:You're (<--Got it right this time) correct to point out that anarchism is a valid interpretation of individualism. I've updated my thinking on this. Minarchist's have the unlucky untenable position of saying government is evil and then immediately contradicting themselves by saying, except for this one little bit over here...The Non-aggression principle if a true axiom demands logical consistency not contradictions.
indefiance24 1 year ago
There is only one choice
Either: Service to Self mentality -> hierarchy
or Service to Other -> No hierarchy
We Don't have any social group polarized in STO :(
houtm035 2 years ago
@houtm035
Are you saying that collectivism tends against hierarchy?
MyBrotherMan 2 years ago
@MyBrotherMan
Hi,
I don't see STO as collectivism. Since it's everybody's own choice what he/she thinks is more important.
It's quite unimaginable these days (maybe that's how bad it is already) but
in STO; if everybody only gives, nobody has to take, because it is given.
in STS; if everybody only takes, but you don't succeed. you might suffer badly.
I see it as the two ends of the scale.
I assume on that scale we are about 25% sto and 75% sts.
houtm035 2 years ago
Slight contradiction. Doesn't the use of "either, or" in your statement indicate that there is NOT "only one choice"?
stm333 2 years ago
The choice is between STO and STS..
houtm035 2 years ago
Comment removed
stm333 2 years ago
That isn't a bad way to define the choice in broad terms. But, it is incorrect to equate collectivism with STO, or to equate individualism with STS. Collectivism is a disservice---NOT a service---to others, because it operates by infringing upon the individual rights of everyone. And, if everyone in society is merely considered part of the collective state, then ANY service rendered to anyone will in essence be service to the collective state---as such, the state would be collectively in STS.
stm333 2 years ago
funny enough i see it the other way around... sts tends to collectivism
houtm035 2 years ago
A society erring heavily toward individualistic STS (e.g., America) can indeed foster a reaction which offers a collectivist solution. But collectivism, under the guise of promoting the "good of the whole," only compounds the error by replacing individualistic STS with a collectivist STS. Ideally, society should strive for individualistic STO, which maintains the individual's choice of whom to serve. Collectivism isn't a choice at all, because it removes that choice, forcing all to conform.
stm333 2 years ago
would you explain what STS and STO stand for?
shadowcii 1 year ago
STS = Service to Self; STO = Service to Others.
Just ad hoc abbreviations used here to eliminate typing characters.
stm333 1 year ago
aha.. ok.. and now read my statement.. i said the same thing :)
"--as such, the state would be collectively in STS."
houtm035 2 years ago
Lol, indeed! I think we've distilled it down to debating the question of which came first, collectivism or STS? And maybe that's a distinction without a difference! I've enjoyed the banter :)
stm333 2 years ago
Excellent video series that every individual living on this Earth should watch and understand!
yadranko 2 years ago 2
This is a great video, BUT I must object to the bit where all the tall figures in the "Equality Under the Law" blurb are all white. I mean come on, whoever designed this has to know it's going to piss people off unnecessarily, and alienate everyone who isn't white or who isn't a white supremacist. Thanks to that error, I can't share this video with anyone. If it ever gets amended, please let me know.
MyBrotherMan 2 years ago
Speaking for all the 'blue' people I agree!!lol!! We blues, greens and oranges must unite against the evil white stick figures!! Lmfao!! Give in to the 'collectivism!
jeaubu 2 years ago
You're pointing your finger at yourself!
Your objection perpetuates the supposed bias which you are so quick to criticize! What makes you think the characteristic of being tall denotes superiority? Are you implying that short people are inferior?
Don't obscure the video's true intent by interjecting it with subjective politically correct BS.
stm333 2 years ago
@stm333
Within the context of the visual metaphor the video's author set up, it is clear that height represents some kind of superiority, regardless of whether it does in real life.
Politically correct BS pisses me off as much as anyone, but in a political environment where libertarians are falsely pigeonholed in with white supremacists, it's prudent to refrain from appearing to invoke color sentiments by showing the low as dark and the high as white.
Case in pt: I'm white/poor, Obama is not.
MyBrotherMan 2 years ago
Although I didn't personally interpret the visual that way, I understand your point. But, I think yielding to the demands of whining PC'ers only encourages them to whine even louder. It's like a beast: the more you feed it, then more it grows; and the more it grows, the more you gotta feed it.
stm333 2 years ago
@stm333
And I see your point too, but I think this is far from yielding to their demands. You don't have to be a whining PC'er to feel singled out based on your race. And even more than those racial stereotypes, I'm worried about the video perpetuating the "racist individualist" stereotype on ourselves.
Feeding the PC beast would be more like changing the words you use to refer to minorities every 6 months as they always get offended by each new one...
Btw...Happy Thanksgiving!
MyBrotherMan 2 years ago
TY...and also to U!
stm333 2 years ago
background music TOO LOUD
AMCSTORE 2 years ago 4
I agree, the music is too loud and is actually a distraction. I think people making these videos need to make up their mind where they want the audience attention to be. Do they want to entertain me with music, or tell me a story. Plain and simple...
7event7horizon7 2 years ago 2
I cannot understand this man because the music is so loud and annoying. Where might i see a better clip of this message"
OneDollarDVDproject com will need a video of this information.
ronaldneil 2 years ago 2
Read the five part series upon which this video is based. It's called The Future Is Calling at TheEndRun . com under the links section. Possibly the best concise overview of "The New World Order" in existence using the globalists' own words to explain it, with sources.
StandUpForLiberty 2 years ago
I always did conceder all those "right wing, left wing, republican, democrat, etc. just a crock of manor. I'm an individualist and thanks for pointing that out to me.
locationartisthawaii 2 years ago
I support Individualism!
Each Person, Responsible,
for themselves & thier Family.
FREEDOM! It's woth fighting for!
colletivism, is nothing but communism, socialism, fascism,marxism.
WE ARE NOT, The Borg!
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!
DEO VINDICE!
LONG LIVE THE REBELLION!
rebelstang 2 years ago
I support SPELL CHECKERS!
courageouslion 2 years ago
Good for you, I support SPELL CHESS.
7event7horizon7 2 years ago
Well said!
wrjamescom 2 years ago
Thanks!
DEO VINDICE!
RebelStangII 2 years ago
The only true rights are those that can be enforced by those who believe they exist.
smujismuj 2 years ago
very good comment. which I think leads to the conclusion that rights are a moral issue as they can't exist and be defended without belief.
dharmashooter 2 years ago
There is no "Democrat" party.
If you refuse to even call them by their proper name how can expect people to think you're being fair?
andyjunction 2 years ago
Andy: You're right, the Democrat party is essentially a collectivist one.
4GooMan 2 years ago
Google "Freeman on the Land"
HighlandFreePress 2 years ago
Fascism, and communism is the same enemy.
macdogq 2 years ago
There's nothing wrong with Statism.
AndrewBenMcKay 2 years ago
Sure, slavery is great! It's just another system chosen by the people, huh? Statism is slavery.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
Indovidualism is only suitable for a select few - i.e those who can look after themselves.
AndrewBenMcKay 2 years ago
im split down the middle
jungleman68 2 years ago
"Collectivists" aka socialists are learning disabled, they can't learn from history. The obvious fact that eludes their comprehension is that all rights are individual in nature. You cannot have group "rights", it's a silly concept.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
Well I hope Individualists aka Conservatives learn from this recession, the idea that you can just let the markets do what they want has finally been proved wrong.
AndrewBenMcKay 2 years ago
Where do you get that BS? This mess was created by government butting in and trying to manipulate and interfere with free markets. Ever hear of the Community Reinvestment Act? The free market does well when government stays out of it.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
Tell that to the millions who are unemployed, like it or not, its needs intervention.
AndrewBenMcKay 2 years ago
So if your house was torched by arsonists and is burning, you think asking arsonists to pour gas on it will help? If you want to create jobs get government out of the way. What do you think would happen is tomorrow government declared Detroit a tax free business zone, and free of all regulations propping up unions, free of minimum wage laws, and paid no Social Security or unemployment taxes? Unemployment in Detroit would be near zero in under a month.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
I don't see why people are so reluctant to admit that Government intervention is not needed when the market fails.
What the minimum wage did was help people get back into work, creating 1 million jobs and making people realize that they will no longer come second to profits.
AndrewBenMcKay 2 years ago
ROTFLMAO! Right, higher prices make people buy more! Sure, Bozo! What school did you flunk out of?
wrjamescom 2 years ago
Stop changing the subject and enough with the embarassing sarcastic bullshit.
When the market fails, it's the Governments duty to step in, otherwise it would have collapsed, the Tories can't seem to understand this.
AndrewBenMcKay 2 years ago
When you say something as stupid like ' the minimum wage created jobs', you should expect ridicule. And if you understood anything your know that the government intervention that caused the problem is obviously not the solution to the problem.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
But when the minimum wage was introduced people went out and looked for work, because they knew it was more difficult for greedy employers to exploit them.
Government intervention solved the problem - the market needed it otherwise it would have collapsed!
And btw, there's a difference between ridicule and sheer immaturity.
AndrewBenMcKay 2 years ago
Come on, you are kidding, right? You can't be that stupid! Increasing the cost of labor is like anything else, it causes people to buy less of it. Besides, if the people weren't looking for work then they aren't unemployed, they were just bums. If we let them get hungry enough, then they'll develop a work ethic.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
Well I don't know what planet youve been on but for the last year, most of us have been going through a global economic recession.
Government intervention was needed and the view that you can just let the markets take control of themselves with unlimited powers is simply ridiculous and is one of the reasons we are in this mess!
AndrewBenMcKay 2 years ago
On earth, it's government that caused the recession. Using your logic, government should make more food available to people by putting minimum prices on it and hiking it frequently to make it as expensive as possible so more people would want to sell it.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
C'mon, are you honestly suggesting that the Government are to blame?
Is it not the Conservative ideology has failed us?
AndrewBenMcKay 2 years ago
Government is absolutely to blame! The socialist scams a relentless taxing and spending and then borrowing to spend even more, plus anti-constitutional leftist social programming is what created these messes.
You can't blame the conservatives. Conservatives haven't had control of anything in government since well before WWII. Only the very ignorant would consider republicans conservative.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
You are so reluctant yo accept that the market had failed aren't you?
The Government intervened to save the market and banks that would have otherwise collapsed.
Listen, lower taxes for everyone simply isn't the answer and with Conservatives it's a disguise to actually make the rich pay less, we saw it 30 years ago and if Cameron gets his way, we'll see spending cuts in benefits to fund a high earners tax break.
AndrewBenMcKay 2 years ago
Oh! I see! You don't care about reality or the markets of freedom, you just want to stick it to rich people who are evil! Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. If you ever get an education you'll see how stupid that kind of thinking is. You can't make poor people better off by punishing success. The top 10% pay most of the taxes already, the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing. Who's not paying their fair share? Cutting taxes helps everyone, even if it offends jealous bums.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
Paying their fair share? What do you want? Taxes of those who are benefit dependent? Damm right the rich should pay more taxes, that's only fair.
It's not a punishment of success, it's sharing the wealth, what part of that don't you understand? Rich people aren't evil at all, I never said that, I do say they should be taxed more - I think that is only fair and obvious, your starting to sound a bit like Thatcher, do you agree with a flat tax?
AndrewBenMcKay 2 years ago
The great thing about freedom is that you are free to share your wealth. You are not free to share what doesn't belong to you. You socialist parrots just cannot stand the ide of others being free. You can't bear to watch others succeed, so when they work twice as much as you for years and finally get somewhere in life, you want to tear them down over your twisted 5 year old's view of "fairness". Taxes on income should be flat... flat ZERO percent.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
The great thing about your so called "freedom" is that it allows an elite to rip others dreams and ambitions to shreds, it allows a group at the top of society to exploit and mismanage the rest of society.
"Fairness" I don't see how that's a five year olds view, after all 54% of Brits still prefer the collectivist system.
AndrewBenMcKay 2 years ago
People who think like 5 year olds don't see it. Little kids don't earn what they get, they see the world as full of stuff that everyone is entitled too without regard to work. They think anyone who has more is being selfish, they don't understand that some people save and invest and work more to have more. People like you think you are entitled to the fruits of others hard work. You don't see that it is you who is selfish.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
And what difference does it make how many think what? In a free society, majority rule is a joke, a system for 5 year olds to "play fair". Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. I prefer a constitutional republic where any man if free to tell the majority to screw themselves, and his rights remain protected. If 54% of the Brits want to be slaves, let them sell themselves to the other 46%.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
Well I don't think a man being able to tell everyone else to screw themselves is exactly democratic.
The things is, your definition of democracy only works and favors the elite at the top of society, we need a system where all voices are herd and the working class get a say.
AndrewBenMcKay 2 years ago