[CreamDream]

This is really just an open topic. Every society is posed with the same general problem, to what degree does individual responsibility end, and collective responsibility begin? Where does private property end and collective property begin? Is anyone entitled to any sort of standard of living, and if so, what is that standard, should the burden of that collective responsibility be equally distributed (a flat tax), or should the burden be more so on the affluent?

[Wolfman]

When an individuals bad actions affect society as a whole, it becomes a collective issue.

[redcarpet]

People have both. And that's not a Left-wing conception, the Right agree.

The Right began this idea actually, though in a different version. Like that all commoners(and aristocrats) have a responsibility to serve their king/queen, assist in upholding crown & common law including against fellow subjects of the sovereign. Then the conception expanded, 1215 being the first major turning-point from the medieval conception of 'responsibility' to the post-1945 UN & Nuremberg based conception that all are accountable to the law and culpable for violating it.

The modern Welfare State has a more broader one that the legal one as a manifestation of expanded political and social responsibilities all institutions, groups and individuals have to the common good of society.

[Gommi]

When circumstances prevent individuals from fulfilling their responsibilities, this is when collective rights must be recognized and provided for. In the example of the welfare state, because not everyone is able to pay for essential services, individuals must sacrifice some personal wealth to ensure that all citizens have necessities.

[Cartertonian]

In military leadership and management theory there is a simple 'x/y' axis chart that is sometimes used. It has 'concern for team' on one axis and 'concern for task' on the other. The best leaders tend to sit somewhere on the diagonal centre line, balancing both concerns.

If you substitute Collectivism for 'concern for team', and Individualism for 'concern for task', I certainly believe the most productive people will sit on that diagonal centre line (...note the sig )

[Melodramatic]

Personally i like cartertonian's approach, though in reality I'm probably a tad more egoistic (aka individual responsibility). But on a wider level I believe in choice. just because i care doesn't mean everyone has too. I'd be glad to pay some of my money for the Collective but i don't want to force people to. That's why I'd never vote for a socialistic option, not because i don't want it.

[DanDaMan]

This is really just an open topic. Every society is posed with the same general problem, to what degree does individual responsibility end, and collective responsibility begin?

My nose.

Where does private property end and collective property begin? Is anyone entitled to any sort of standard of living

No

[ninurta]

[]This is really just an open topic. Every society is posed with the same general problem, to what degree does individual responsibility end, and collective responsibility begin?[]
My nose.

So you are against collective responsibility?

[]Where does private property end and collective property begin? Is anyone entitled to any sort of standard of living[]
No

Why not? You're for what makes the nation and the family the best they can be, or at least to your own standard.

[DanDaMan]

DanDaMan wrote:
[]This is really just an open topic. Every society is posed with the same general problem, to what degree does individual responsibility end, and collective responsibility begin?[]
My nose.

So you are against collective responsibility?

At a federal level, yes.
At a state, preferably very local community level, yes.

Quote:
[]Where does private property end and collective property begin? Is anyone entitled to any sort of standard of living[]
No

Why not? You're for what makes the nation and the family the best they can be, or at least to your own standard.

Through homogeneous, preferably Christian, religious morality lived by all.
That's actually the only way, IMO, you can sustain a Constitutional Republic or Libertarian state.

[Rei Murasame]

Through homogeneous, preferably Christian, religious morality lived by all. That's actually the only way, IMO, you can sustain a Constitutional Republic or Libertarian state.

Which - as was discussed in another thread that you hijacked - is falsified by the fact that basically no one has ever achieved 'homogenised' morality and social mores through non-interventionist means.

The very nature of what you're implying is that Libertarianism only works if someone can make everyone to conform to some specific set of behaviours prescribed by a group of social engineers who would by that virtue be governing. It's self-contradictory.

[DanDaMan]

Which - as was discussed in another thread that you hijacked - is falsified by the fact that basically no one has ever achieved 'homogenised' morality and social mores through non-interventionist means.

The very nature of what you're implying is that Libertarianism only works if someone can make everyone to conform to some specific set of behaviours prescribed by a group of social engineers who would by that virtue be governing. It's self-contradictory.

Someone or God.
Israel, someone pointed out to me a while back, has a secular government that gives Muslims more liberties than in their own Muslim run states.

Understand that laws are there because a morality was present.
What we have in America is an erosion of homogeneous morality by the secular left and therefore a government now wanting to be the nanny state setting up the morality.


Case in point PBV.... IMO, a Christian trumpeting the nanny state because Christian morality and charity is crumbling around us. He now stands at the altar of heads of state and preaches their promised salvation.

[Wolfman]

What we have in America is an erosion of homogeneous morality by the secular left

Remind me, when was the last time we had a homogeneous morality?

[DanDaMan]

Remind me, when was the last time we had a homogeneous morality?

Ok. I admit homogeneous is probably not the best word. "Majority" is probably more appropriate.

[Wolfman]

OK, when was the last time we had a majority morality?

[DanDaMan]

OK, when was the last time we had a majority morality?

Hmm.
Your making me think that it's possibly a time where we had few "modern Liberal" types incapable of competent objective discrimination. ;)
I'm at a loss to articulate the precise word.

[Rei Murasame]

Someone or God.

Which of course is the exact opposite of the Libertarianism you profess, meaning that you can't do it anyway.

[youtube]8b5nrCPIw5g[/youtube]
You said it, not me!

[youtube]jC-v7yJ5UAg[/youtube]
You said it, not me~

[Melodramatic]

heh silly Brits.

Through homogeneous, preferably Christian, religious morality lived by all.
That's actually the only way, IMO, you can sustain a Constitutional Republic or Libertarian state.

I (and I assume most true libertarians, seeing as what you describe is impossible) believe you describe the polar opposite of what libertarianism should be. if you have such a homogeneous society have a dictatorship. libertarianism is about allowing different mindsets and different people, along as they don't force themselves on any one else.

[DanDaMan]

I (and I assume most true libertarians, seeing as what you describe is impossible) believe you describe the polar opposite of what libertarianism should be. if you have such a homogeneous society have a dictatorship. libertarianism is about allowing different mindsets and different people, along as they don't force themselves on any one else.

I agree. But the proof that it's bound to fail, in a large modern world, is America today, where minorities pervert the system to detriment of the majority. They now rule.
See Obama.

I'm not saying my preferred form of government, Constitution Republic, is perfect. Just more sustainable than one closer to anarchy (Libertarianism). Which, by the way, failed in early America.

And given the choice I would probably vote Libertarian in order to move the country further away from the statist left of fascism.

[Melodramatic]

I don't quite see your point Dan, the only thing that can give minorities (which you are obviously over-paranoid of) more power then they should have is government intervention. A libertarian state will delete that. In a libertarian state if people want to do what minorities say they can but they cant force it on others. the way i see it the state has no business regarding minorities, aside form giving everyone equal rights regarding its own minimal authority.

[DanDaMan]

I don't quite see your point Dan, the only thing that can give minorities (which you are obviously over-paranoid of) more power then they should have is government intervention. A libertarian state will delete that. In a libertarian state if people want to do what minorities say they can but they cant force it on others. the way i see it the state has no business regarding minorities, aside form giving everyone equal rights regarding its own minimal authority.

I apologize if I led you to believe my "minority" was a racial one. It's the minority group I am talking about.

It's hard to describe but I would argue that the founding of this nation is about as Libertarian as you can get.
The key was it was founded by moral Christian men and their laws made based on the morality of protecting the innocent.
Today the guilty are protected and the innocent find they are on the losing side of the battle.
(so now the majority (good) have lost to the minority (evil) of the guilty and or corrupt)

Using that description I fail how to see how a large modern secular Libertarian society can be sustainable when the moral-less law will be perverted quickly into the defense of the guilty as it is today.

If you do not believe me just remember my posts on Zero Tolerance school law that fails to discriminate 2" plastic toy guns from real ones or the intent of mentally retarded autistic boys over that of the normal.