This week we are shifting gears and talking about totalitarian politics.
We've been talking about Libertarianism. Libertarianism is about the celebration of the individual and their rights against the control of the government. The government is an expression of the collective. One of the issues we discussed in class has to do with the tension between the individual and the collective. Libertarian leaning Republicans, for instance, argued against disaster relief for New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy. (Here is another link).
Totalitarianism is basically the opposite of libertarianism. Totalitarianism is about celebrating the collective (and the government that is an expression of the collective), not the individual. For totalitarianism, the emphasis is on One Nation lead by a strong leader, not a bunch of individuals doing as they please.
What do you think?
Is the individual more important than the collective? Or, is the collective more important than the individual? What is the proper balance between the individual and the collective? Where do the rights of the individual end and the responsibility of the collective begin?
The individual rights and collective rights of the people are both important and vital for a economy and government to survive and last. The rights of an individual stop when a majority of people can be satisfied or protected rather then just a certain number of individuals that want a certain thing or action. The rights of the collective start when people talk about the country as a whole or how it's managing or its status is doing.
ReplyDeleteJ.C. Mao-Alston
PSCI 100:03
This is hard to put into words without sounding like a complete asshole, but I really don't care. Individuals are more important than collectives. Yes I feel bad when people have their houses wiped out from a hurricane, or entire towns that are destroyed by tornadoes, but the fact is, there is no reason as a collective to support rebuilding in tornado alley, so they can rebuild and a few years later an F5 rolls through and destroys it again. If I wanted to build a community, and had the houses on the side of a volcano and it erupted, why would I rebuild there knowing it could happen again? Why would you want to spend your money to help me rebuild my house on the side of a volcano? Somewhere there is someone with a bleeding heart that advocates for these people. We need to get in there and rebuild, and get them back on their feet. I say absolutely not. Like Ron says, Fema hasn't always existed. If a town was torn apart by floods or tornados, the people that survived pulled together as a community and rebuilt the town themselves.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the balance goes, I am all for you mind your business and I'll mind mine, that applies to hardships as well. If something were to happen to my community, I would be furious if some government came in, kicked me out of my home for safety, or just told me what I have to do. I can take care of my own shit, you stay out of it.
The only time I believe there should be any collective actions, is as a defensive military position. That is the one and only reason for us to come together as a country and basically defend our lands. I would be willing to fight for my freedom, and I believe if you live in this country, you should all do the same.
Chelse O'Connor
To me individual rights are much more important then working together collectively. Never can you trust one person with all the power to lead anything. obviously he is going to be in in not to look for the best gains of everyone else. He will only think of what finical and political gains he can earn himself. He will not put the country first. Everyone needs to listen to themselves and do what is best for themselves.
ReplyDeleteMike Reed
I completely agree that personal or individual rights are more important than working together collectively... but I also think that some cannot achieve personal rights without the collectivist group. Yes you can never ever trust anyone else in any way because people are going to let you down no matter what. I agree that he will only think of himself and what he wants, regardless of others. The country will never come first, but that is also human nature. Usually nothing ever comes over your own feelings. I agree with your comment.
DeletePersonally, a collective coalition of leaders is more important because it allows the responsibility of leadership to be distributed evenly among leaders. never can you trust one person to lead with all power and not expect something to go wrong along the way. he will most likely think only but himself and make leadership gaffes during his time. if people collectively agree on things and make decisions as a whole, then mistakes would not be made and leaders would look out for the community as a whole.
ReplyDeleteKevin Cantarilho
I think the collective and the individual are equally important. In order to have a strong collective, each individual has to do their part. The individual should have many rights and freedoms, but somethings need collective regulations and rules for the protection of each individual - things like laws, the FDA, law enforcement officials, fire fighters, us mail, public parks and roads.
ReplyDeleteMaggie Nevin
I believe that the collective and the individual are important, I also believe that if you take away the government then society as a whole will become collective on their own. I believe that in order to survive most of the time whether people like to admit it or not, they need help from other people. I believe that people would help out other people in need on their own accord if there was no government and this would create a better sense of community and collectiveness.
ReplyDeleteKayla Motheral
I feel that we need an equal balance between the two: collective and individual. I am a big supporter of individual rights and making our own decisions as long as your choices are not affecting those around the country, like gay marriage and abortion. I do not see how two men or two women, etc. getting married will affect the community; its their personal decision that only affects them. So therefore, we should be allowed to make individual choices.
ReplyDeleteBut I also believe in a strong government that represents the community. I want to live in a country where I feel safe walking down the streets, and guaranteed opportunities. Before reading the book, Welcome to Free America, I was all for libertarianism, but it changed my mind. It made me realize we do need some kind of government. So I'm really on the fence if I was forced to choose one: totalitarianism or libertarianism. That's why I feel it is important that we find a perfect balance between the two that makes the majority happy.
Amanda Malave
PSCI 100:02
A collective is just a group of individuals.The concept of the collective cannot exist without the concept of the individual. Both maintain a certain level of importance. The proper balance is one that maintains certain liberties and responsibility of the collective begins when individual actions begin to affect or hurt other individual, thus begins collective action.
ReplyDelete-Jessica Fort
PSCI 11-12 MFW
In a nation the collective should be the concern of the government because they need to have the interests of majority of the people in mind. But everyone should have their individual freedoms. Social freedoms should be in the control of the individual, and the freedom of the individual would increase the community and therefore the collective. The public good should be served by the collective, parks, and protective services.
ReplyDeleteKayla Piechowiak
PSCI 100-03
First off people need to understand that the "collective" were once considered individuals just like us. The only difference is that we the people elected them because we thought that they were the best candidate to fight for what we wanted and was also right and humane. I think it used to be like that until money and greed came into the picture. I 100% do not agree with a totalitarian government. The people are the most important part of America. If we do not believe in something then why would be pick up a gun and fight. Sometimes making a decision will not make the majority happen but if it is the right thing to do then who cares. I am already stressed as it is with our nation being a democracy. I feel like I cannot get away from the government and am always doing wrong. I really do not think a stronger government would be necessary and I feel as if I am not the only one that thinks so.
ReplyDeleteNick Bakos
PSCI 100-03
It's always been difficult to have a good balance between the individual and the collective, but it really is a necessity in order to stay away from a totalitarian government system. Any leaders of this nation should be concerned with the popular ideas of the majority of that nation, but also the outliers must be accounted for. Certain individual freedoms must be upheld by the government in order to maintain some sort of balance and semblance of order in society. If the individual is contented, the collective will be able to coexist and function in a useful manner. A stronger, more oppressive and intervening government is not what this country needs. The United States is accustomed to a Democracy, however skewed said Democracy may be, and any drastic change to what we know now would be unnecessary and problematic.
ReplyDeleteCasey DeHaven
PSCI 100:02
In my opinion, the collective and individual are interconnected with each other. I don't think there should be one strong leader leading a nation. It has a recipe for disaster because people will get tired of that one leader telling them what to do. As a collective, you can come together in a consensus and make decisions. I would much rather have a government than one leader in total control. People shouldn't sit around for things like Fema though. They need to learn to take action into their own hands. I am all for people making their own decisions because it is their life. They should be able to do what they want. On the opposite end, I think we should have a government to lead the country.
ReplyDeleteBlake Johnson
PSCI 100:03
I agree with you Blake. I don't believe there should be one supreme ruler of a country. I believe there should be some sort of committee. I believe that people should definitely learn to take matters into their own hands and not sit back and wait for others to take care of their problems.
DeleteTyrek Collier 100:03
I agree that the individual and the collective coexist. However the ideals of libertarians and totalitarians are polar opposites, each taking its ideals to the extreme. In a totalitarian society one strong ruler could be dangerous because the ruler has complete and total control over the "collective". Submitting this much power to one person allows the ruler to do what ever they want. Totalitarians do not care for the individuals, only for the group. I wouldn't like this because everyone acts as robots, no one is unique.
ReplyDeleteIn the libertarian society they advocate that no one shall have power over another, however the only instance one can have power over another is if they try to harm a person. I think this isn't really a good idea either, without some kind of ruler or power over others there can not be stability and organization.
I believe it is important to find a balance between the collective and the individual. Its important to function as a society but also still retain your own individuality.
Alicia White
100:02
I agree with what you have said. Finding a perfect balance between the individual and collective is important because individuals make up the collective. Also what you talked about with the extremes is very true.
DeleteHaley Smith
PSCI 100:02
Its my natural response to say that the individual is far more important than the collective, but I'm not so sure of myself, really. Clearly there are some quite good arguments for the collective being much more important, obviously since the collective represents everyone as a whole. I think we can all agree that the continued existence and progress of our species is more important than any one person's happiness.
ReplyDeleteBut an American upbringing generally leaves one impressioned with the importance of individual rights, individual freedoms, the pursuit of happiness. And this is just one way of looking at the world.
I'm inclined to think just from a logical perspective that a balance between individual and collective would probably be the most productive thing, but as for where that line lies, I have no idea.
Totalitarianism obviously doesn't lead to many people being very happy, people as a rule inclined to be selfish and focus on their own needs, but then again, we have a similar problem in our supposedly democratic country. A lot of people are upset because congressman and such seem to be quite focused on their own individual gain - their pursuit of happiness. So its sort of a hard call to make.
It has been said many times that the worst leader is a bad dictator, and the best form of government is a benevolent dictator. I'm inclined to think that's true. Irrespective of the individual good and bad parts of any political system, I think that the actual people in power, and how their actions are perceived by the people (which has a direct correspondence to the contentedness of the people, which is important for any system of government) is the most important thing. If everyone agreed to a totalitarian system, it would probably work great. But the same thing could be said about any system of government, if everyone agreed to it it would work great. Anarchy sounds like a great idea if you assume everyone abides by the same principles.
Pete Sheehan, psci 100:03
The idea of totalitarianism is drab and depressing. However, I didn't completely like the idea of extreme libertarianism either. In my opinion, somewhere in between would be the best alternative. However, I would tend to lean more towards the libertarian side, offering more freedom to the individual. I like the idea of having some government agencies and roles, such as in regulating medicine, the environment, and roads. However, I don't agree that the government should be in absolute control of everything.
ReplyDeleteKatelyn Amspacher
PSCI 100:03
I agree, private life remaining private while the government controls things that should be deemed public access.
Delete-Jessica Fort
PSCI 100 : MWF 11-12
I think defiantly a necessary balance between the individual and the group is important. We cannot avoid natural disasters and some kind of origination that is bigger than local communities can help in cases of a hurricane, tsunami, or tornado. I think the Red Cross is a great example of a non-profit that is possibly more efficient than a government origination like Fema. But there should be a proper balance for an individuals rights and when the collective should step in to help or give some orders, especially if the individual is causing harm instead of helping another individual.
ReplyDeleteJoey Diaz
PSCI 100.03
The individual is more important than the collective, because the latter is made by the former one. The only people that think the other way around are the tyrants psychopaths dictators that have no regards for human life, and they are surrounded by leeches that just want to have a good life, at the cost of the entire country. Examples of these kind of so call leaders are Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin and Kim Jong dinasty. They just have their own agenda and to fulfil it they will take inconcievable ways.
ReplyDeleteJanet Loue
PSCI 100:02
This is a fairly difficult question; I think both are equally as important. The collective is made up of individuals. The needs of the individual that are shared by many, becomes the needs of the collective.
ReplyDeleteI think that when you think about an isolated incident, it should matter more about what the individual wants and needs, because there is less to be concerned about as far as encroaching on others rights, but when you want to lead a vast group of people with varying beliefs and cultures, then you need to think about what the group as a whole wants.
Brandon Smead
Psci 100:03
The individual should not have full power over the collective, but the collective should not be the puppet master either. With the collective having that kind of empowerment (as in North Korea) it would turn the leader into a God like figure. This much power limits any kind of freedom to do ANYTHING, including making art, talking on the phone, studying what you please, and even leaving the country. The collective should step in to defend the country and to help the people. The collective should be for the people, not for themselves.
ReplyDeleteCarleigh Underwood PSCI 100:03
Collective rights are certainly important, but not more important than individual rights. When collective rights are places above individual rights, individual right usually disappear completely.
ReplyDeleteAlex Smith
PSCI 100:02
I believe that they have about the same importance. Of course we can all say that the individual is important but if you think about it everyone if important no matter what they are. The rights of the individual end when he ruins the rights of others.
ReplyDeleteDanielle McManus
PSCI 100:02
I am strongly for individual rights. However, I do not believe that the individual should be more important than the good of humanity. The individuality of the United States has left politicians and the people "in charge" of our country to become selfish and encouraged personal benefit over the health of the collective. The fact that 1% of the population in the United States is in control of the major majority of the wealth is a prime example of the individual being more important than the collective. I believe the best interests of the collective should be put first without infringing upon the personal rights established in the constitution. The government does not act in the best interests of the collective but of the individual. Obviously, there has to be some type of balance between the collective and individual, but i would not be able to justify one being more important than another. The United States government should be run like a publicly traded corporation who's main goal is to maximize shareholder wealth. The people are the shareholders of the United States and let me tell you most of us have not seen a "dividend" or "raise in stock price" in a while because shareholder wealth is not valued as most important.
ReplyDeleteI think that people should be able to live for themselves and not just to conform to the collective and have no individual freedoms. That is no way to live. Only very rarely will there be a situation in which the good of society (or the collective) should be placed above the good of the individual.
ReplyDeleteKayla McFarland PSCI 100.03
I think that the individual is more important than the collective because only you knows what is best for you. The government likes to try and say they know what is best for everyone, but they have no clue because being led by a bunch of overgrown kindergardeners in suits is not what is best for a nation. And one leader definitely doesn't know what's best for everyone in a collective which is why I don't agree with Totalitarianism at all. I know what I need and what I must do to meet that need and as long as I am allowed to meet that need on my own without harming anyone else then I don't need anyone else butting in and saying I can't do something because it's not what's best for me. If everyone was capable enough to make decisions for themselves then I think we would be in a much better situation in our country, but it seems that the government has taken away this ability and people seem to be just fine with that.
ReplyDeletePSCI 100
I think that the collective is more important then the individual in a sense that id rather die then see multiples die in a situation. Yes the collective can be a pain in the situations where every body's opinion matters, but would you rather a individual choose what is right and wrong for you?
ReplyDeletePSCI 100
Dominic Vaccaro
I believe the individual is more important than the collective. People should be able to make their own decisions and think the way they want to. When the collective is more important, people think they know what is best for everyone else. That is not an ideal way to live.
ReplyDeleteBrenna Rose
PSCI 100:03
I think that there is a very fine line between the importance of the individual and the collective. I don't think the individual should be subservient to collective, but at the same time, I feel that the collective should empower the weakest members of society, even at the expense of those at the top of society.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Smith
PSCI:02
I feel as if the individual and the collective should both be represented. I believe the individual should be more important, but there should be some type of collective to feel safe. One should be able to make their own decisions in everyday life, but as soon as a state of emergency is declared, the collective should step in. A government would only have power to protect, but everyday decisions would be in the hands of the individual.
ReplyDeleteCara Mason
PSCI:02
The individual and his/her rights is more important than the collective. When thinking about the collective the rights of the majority group are usually the rights being protected. This leaves the minority group to fend for themselves. Focusing on the individual promotes growth, art, creativity. The collective stomps all of those ideas out.
ReplyDeleteAlicia Himes
PSCI 100.02
With the exception of our servants that are elected by the US Constitution, there is no collective body I would wish to be a part of, especially when society is confused or mistaken for as government. Some of us, elect leaders to the collective, some of us, elect servants. There’s a big difference between the two. The rights of an individual end when they surrender their sovereignty to the collective or acquiesce by allowing their servants to become leaders. When the collective assumes responsibilities or given them, then the collective doesn’t have to give them back. The rights of individuals then end and become privileges within the collective.
ReplyDeleteIndividual rights are more important than collective although collective rights are important, Collective are nothing more than a group of individual's that agree as one . Individuals have the right to have freedom to make their own choices without a collective influence.
ReplyDeletedominique dixon
psci 100:03
I feel as if they both are important but if I had to choose I would say that individual rights are important. If you let individuals choose on what decisions needs to be made, it'll be less confusion instead of a collective of people deciding on what's important or not
ReplyDeleteaj
DeleteI would have to say yes, that the individual is more important than the collective. Of course the collective is also important, but the difference is that collective rights are made by a group of people, who base their opinions off each other, so their choices are influenced by each other, where as an individual can make their own choices. I feel like the responsibility of the collective should begin when there is a state of an emergency, and they protect the individual.
ReplyDeleteKelsey Phelan
PSCI:02
I feel as both sides are important but I feel as though the individualist is more important than the other. A persons individual rights are very important. I feel as though in a good amount of situations a collective decision is better than the individualist decision. Especially in a totalitarian society you have no other choice then to be a collectivist.
ReplyDeleteNicole Ruane
PSCI:02
I feel the balance between the two ultimately starts with the individual. You can revert to the old saying "we are only as strong as our weakest link". If the individual doesn't focus on them selves first they cannot contribute to the collective. When it comes to rights I feel that it learns towards the individual as well due to the fact that people are different. If everything is handled with the best interest of the collective you will have some people unhappy and that could ultimately lead to rebellion.
ReplyDeleteDemetrius Dixon
TR; 9:35
I think that there should be a balanced between the individual and the collective to make it work. The people (individuals) should have a say in what happens as well as the collective (government) to keep things in order. The collective is there for the individuals, so its important that the individuals are satisfied with what the collective does. That is where the collective must take responsibility to make sure the individuals are happy but must also take control when necessary.
ReplyDeleteShannon Lyons
PSCI 100:03
The individual is more important and not because of the concept of individualism but In order to have a collective you have to have individuals. The small parts make up the whole. So in order to have a collective society you first need a individual.
ReplyDeleteBoth have upsides and downsides to them. Collectivism is strictly about the group and cares only about the direction of the group is heading rather than celebrating the individual which they see as selfishness.
Finding the right balance between the two is in this huge gray area. But I think the individual should stop when others around you are in need and I think it should be a little more collectivist when looking at our economy. The first is just called be a good human being. The second is because everyone else's life can be ruined by one company betting on the market to make more money. So in return millions end up suffering.
Matthew McNuss
100:02
I think that both are important in a way with individualism being the more important of the two. One needs to have their individual rights but when coming to an important decision, not just one persons opinion should matter. A group decision would be much more accurate considering all judgments are included.
ReplyDeleteDanielle Marple
PSCI 100:02