omgryebread wrote:I think both sides can claim some individualism (so yeah, not on the scale I guess.) I'm okay with traditionalism as the right. My problem in general even with calling the individualist right wing philosophies individualism is that I think they are only surface individualism. I think they invariably lead to corporatism anyway. They're always for an unregulated market, and in markets, corporations do far better. Corporations are hardly bastions of individuality, though it seems some only think the individual/group dichotomy applies to government.CorruptUser wrote:No, I defined the right as "traditionalism". The issue I had with the left-right dichotomy was that "individualism" isn't on the scale at all.
You're entirely missing the point of the government/firm distinction, which is that government can use force. No such private industry can, except through the very government that is supposed to be controlling them.
I think it's impossible to be individualist without respecting individuals. Individualism means freedom, right? Freedom to what? Own guns and hoard your money? Freedom for who? White men in good health from rich families? Freedom from what? GOVERNMENT?And I do take issue with being called conservative. I'm in between moralism and individualism; just that I feel that in recent years the Democrats have all but given up any pretense of supporting individualism.
Egalitarianism means equality, right? Equality of what? Opportunity? Education? Wealth? Culture? Equality for whom? The government's favorite group du jour? Equality according to whom? GOVERNMENT?
To answer your questions: They're not exactly the same thing, but it's hard or nonsensical to have one without the other; whatever, as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights to same; sure, if that's what you want; everyone* (age-, mental state-, and legal/criminal status-restrictions apply); yes, they would generally be included in that group; freedom from force and coercion, including that by government whenever possible.
What about freedom to love who want, or freedom to take contraception or freedom to do whatever you want with a flag? Those are all things Democrats support. What about freedom for the mentally ill, or immigrants, or those who've smoked a bit of pot? What about freedom for those who committed a crime, got out of prison and still can't vote? What about freedom from religious leaders who get abortion banned in a state or say teachers can't talk about homosexuality? What about freedom from corporations that want to dump chemicals in rivers or in the air?
What about equality of being able to defend oneself? What about equality of consideration for employment or acceptance (ie not having race/gender quotas)? These are things Republicans support. What about equality for the unborn? What about equality for What about What about equality for teachers or other workers who don't want to be in unions? What about equality for workers whose skills make them not worth hiring at the minimum wage or Davis-Bacon mandated wage? What about equality of treatment before the law, regardless of economic status?
Or yeah, what about freedom from poverty? What about freedom from lack of opportunity? I have a ton of freedom (thanks in large part to Democrats of the past), but what is that freedom worth if I can't afford the medicine that lets me live like a free person? It's an awfully shallow freedom Republicans are fighting for. Isn't giving a person health care giving them freedom? Isn't giving everyone a good, fair, equal, and free education giving them freedom? If telling a company they can't pollute is restricting their freedom, isn't it providing freedom for the people who live around it? If forcing companies to report on their CDS portfolios restricting their freedom, isn't it providing the freedom of the public to know those things?
Perhaps in a certain sense, one gets more, let's say options, from having all those things provided. But only at the cost of taking away the same amount of option from others, so that's not increasing freedom. Increasing freedom is when you repeal the Davis-Bacon Act, allowing lots of people to work for less if that's the only way they'll get hired. Increasing freedom is not shifting around purchasing power (and losing some in the process). Increasing freedom means allowing people to make their own choices without interference by others. This does not mean trying to actively increase their choices by taking choices away from others. You can't increase freedom that way.
You can put "freedom from" in front of anything bad, and assert that it is more important than some type of freedom, but that doesn't prove that government intervention will actually increase freedom (or equality, for that matter). Because when it comes down to it, the free-market has helped more people raise their standard of living farther in 200 years than every government in the world that has ever tried, combined. And frankly, equality is overrated. Someone else having lots of money doesn't make me any poorer (the fallacy of the economy as a zero-sum structure is possibly one of the most common and destructive fallacies of modern times). The poverty line in the United States represents a level of wealth unprecedented a hundred years ago, and that sort of progress is a hell of a lot more useful than the pathetic, mindless, jealousy-driven attempts by economically illiterate self-righteous do-gooders that take satisfaction in making two richer people just as poor as themselves, rather than making several people richer to different degrees, to control forces they do not begin to understand, in their unbridled arrogance. When government steps in to try to "correct" some perceived flaw (the usage of "correct" in itself shows the assumption that everything the government tries to change is somehow "incorrect"), everyone just ends up poorer *and* with less freedom.
It's a shallow individualism that dumps some of it's individuals alone and disadvantaged.
I think the types of equality espoused by the left are far shallower than the freedoms espoused on the right. Many of the freedoms you talk about only exist now, because of advances in technology and total wealth (themselves due in large part to economic freedom). The freedoms the right tends to focus on are the very crux of Western society and indeed of human existence: life, property, belief, expression. The only way to truly guarantee the rights you propose would be by slavery.
And sure, you get some right wing nutcases who want to run the government by the Bible; you also have left wing nutcases, with their own bible of organic food and door-mat approach to national defense, but that doesn't say anything inherent about the right or the left (well, maybe a little).
IcedT wrote:I think there's a pretty obvious distinction in that each individual gets one vote in government, but in the market the top 15% of people get to cast about 50% of the votes.CorruptUser wrote:Corporations only have the power that citizens give them in the first place. Don't like a corporation? Don't buy the products. Less revenue means a smaller corporation, however slightly. This is more power than you usually have with politicians; whether the politician wins with 55% or 80% of the vote, it makes little difference. It also makes no difference just how much the opposing voters hate the politician; either the politician gets the vote or not.
Alternatively, buy stock and vote for different board members, and you can change the corporate strategy that way.
Aww, how cute.
The government almost always takes the opinion of the 50% of the voting population+1, and applies it to the whole 100%. But the free market can have many different responses. I and 20 other people could walk into a grocery store and walk out an hour later with hundreds of dollars of product each, with no pair having bought any of the same things. This variety could not possibly exist in government. 10% will have a bigger affect on the market than 30% on government.