Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chrisling" data-source="post: 405330" data-attributes="member: 6816">Well, if I was going to take a stab at invalidating another idea rather than just supporting my own, I'd say that the dichotomy between group and individual is illusionary.I mean, take the US for instance.&nbsp; Some people have said, &quot;It's chaotic!&quot;&nbsp; Others have said, &quot;No, it's lawful!&quot; I'll tell you what I think it is, ideally if not in practice: a group of laws, the following of which, allow individuals to be free.&nbsp; So &lt;I&gt;by following the laws of society, you have individual freedom&lt;/i&gt;.&nbsp; Is this law?&nbsp; Is this chaos?&nbsp; Is it using law to have chaos?!&nbsp; What?!&nbsp; Now we're just into contradictions.But, sure, you can say we're neutral.&nbsp; So let's bring up another interesting case: the Netherlands.Ah, the Netherlands.&nbsp; Easily, citizens of the Netherlands have more personal freedom than anyone, anywhere else in the world.&nbsp; I mean, in Amsterdam, when you get arrested the cops can't search you without a search warrant!&nbsp; But it's also a strongly collectivist society -- lots and lots of social programs, a welfare state, etc.&nbsp; So, in the Netherlands, you have people &lt;i&gt;working together for the good of everyone in such a way as to allow enormous personal freedoms&lt;/i&gt;.So, how do you fit &quot;working as a group for the freedom of the individual&quot; into a simple &quot;group vs. society&quot; argument?&nbsp; The truth seems to be that a person can belong to a group and look out for themselves &lt;i&gt;at the same time&lt;/i&gt;.Which confuses me, so I do without it.Actually, I'd put Adam Smith as Neutral Good.&nbsp; He was trying to help people escape the onerous burdens of the mercantile and early Industrial Revolution era economy through elimination of laws that prevented individual initiative but at the same time he was wildly in favor of Britian's Poor Laws for moral reasons.&nbsp; A pretty good guy.&nbsp; Modern interpretation of Smith -- which ignores most of what he actually wrote, by the way -- has sought to cast him in the role of a guy favoring rugged individualism.&nbsp; Which, sure, maybe he was -- but he also believed that society should help up people who have fallen.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chrisling, post: 405330, member: 6816"] Well, if I was going to take a stab at invalidating another idea rather than just supporting my own, I'd say that the dichotomy between group and individual is illusionary. I mean, take the US for instance. Some people have said, "It's chaotic!" Others have said, "No, it's lawful!" I'll tell you what I think it is, ideally if not in practice: a group of laws, the following of which, allow individuals to be free. So by following the laws of society, you have individual freedom. Is this law? Is this chaos? Is it using law to have chaos?! What?! Now we're just into contradictions. But, sure, you can say we're neutral. So let's bring up another interesting case: the Netherlands. Ah, the Netherlands. Easily, citizens of the Netherlands have more personal freedom than anyone, anywhere else in the world. I mean, in Amsterdam, when you get arrested the cops can't search you without a search warrant! But it's also a strongly collectivist society -- lots and lots of social programs, a welfare state, etc. So, in the Netherlands, you have people working together for the good of everyone in such a way as to allow enormous personal freedoms. So, how do you fit "working as a group for the freedom of the individual" into a simple "group vs. society" argument? The truth seems to be that a person can belong to a group and look out for themselves at the same time. Which confuses me, so I do without it. Actually, I'd put Adam Smith as Neutral Good. He was trying to help people escape the onerous burdens of the mercantile and early Industrial Revolution era economy through elimination of laws that prevented individual initiative but at the same time he was wildly in favor of Britian's Poor Laws for moral reasons. A pretty good guy. Modern interpretation of Smith -- which ignores most of what he actually wrote, by the way -- has sought to cast him in the role of a guy favoring rugged individualism. Which, sure, maybe he was -- but he also believed that society should help up people who have fallen. [/QUOTE]

Verification