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.
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 strong and unified nation lead by a strong leader. The emphasis is on conformity, or finding freedom by submitting one's self to the collective. Nazi Germany under Hitler is one prominent example of a totalitarian politics. The National Fascist Party lead by Mussolini is another example.
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? In other words, where do your individual rights end and the rights of the American people begin?
I feel that the individual is largely more important than the collective. While I do agree that the collective should have some power and responsibility, (such as relief for New Jersey in the above example) the individual should be responsible for most of his actions. For instance, the bailout of 2008 should not have happened. The companies should have been allowed to go bankrupt and then rebuild. Free market should control many of the things within a country, such as healthcare so that it operates more efficiently. In reality there are some people who are productive and some who are not. If the country were a collective, those who are productive would have to suffer in some way to an extent in order to pick up the slack which was left by the unproductive members. I do not find that to be acceptable.
ReplyDeleteKevin Hagerty PSCI 100.02
When it come to aid relief, that is when the collective should proudly come together. As far as large corporations, the government should play very little of a role in it. Healthcare is something that I'm always on edge about, as far as government interference or just allowing the free market to work out the knots, but until we run trail and error we will never know. So maybe we should allow the free market to take full handle on healthcare.
Delete(Da'shawn Long) PSCI 100:03
One argument that I always refer to when arguing this is the NYC Bomb Threat: would you torture an individual who knew the location of a bomb in New York City, or would you be too concerned with violating their personal rights? I always choose the collective in this case. If stripping one person of their basic rights can save the lives of hundreds or thousands of others, why wouldn't you? An individual is never more important to the collective than the collective is. However, it is not an issue to be taken lightly. Another, slightly less morbid, example would be you and a group of friends going out to eat. The rest of the group wants to go to McDonald's but you really want Burger King. Most of the time, you'll have to suck it up and go to McDonald's because the collective getting what they want is more important than what you as an individual want. These are just two examples, but what I believe when it comes to the issue.
ReplyDeleteNadean Kline PSCI 100.02
Both as individual or as a collective there are going to be rules, laws, or guidelines. If theses exist so will those individuals who cross them. But you are correct these as well as punishment has to be put in place as a collective at times to help the society as a whole.
DeleteI believe there should be a good balance between the focus on the individual and the collective. Both are very important and should be valued. The collective gets more accomplished when the individuals work together and have a common goal. One person standing out can bring all of the progress to a halt. In the case, the individual should move to a collective where they are more suited. I just feel like one cannot work without the other being valued. There is a necessary balance between both. However, I guess I would say that if a situation came that an individual was putting the collective in danger, the collective would be the more important.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statements. A balance is a necessity for all things and until we have balance we will not have peace.
Delete(Da'shawn Long) PSCI 100:03
DeleteThere has got to be some type of balance. There are times when the individual cannot do it alone and a natural disaster is a perfect case. I will use Hurricane Katrina for an example. It took the government 4 days to get to the MS Gulf Coast. 235 people lost their lives. We had no food, no water, no shelter and no communication. Individuals worked together as best as we all could, but we had to have government intervention, the collective had to come to the individual aid. Yes, there were A LOT of problems when the government did finally get there, but that is a another story. Another example, to me, when the individual is more important than the collective is gun laws. It is every individual's right to keep and bear arms and we do not need the government telling us that we can't. I feel that the collective would be more important in the case of national security. When an individual threatens the security of the nation, than the collective needs to step in a handle the problem. That is one of the few time that the government should be more important than the individual. I believe though that there has got to be a balance. How to achieve that I do not know.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the government should take an active role when it comes to natural disaster. The individuals had nothing to do with those tragedies so it would be hard and unfair for them to fix the whole problem by themselves both physically and financially. I think that the government also does need to take a role when it comes to both national security and defense in general. I think that where the government should stay out of people's lives is in their religion just as religion should stay out of the business of the state. People should be able to practice their faith without fear of breaking the law. Another field that the government should stay away from is people's personal health. That is very personal and should be left up to the individual as long as it can't immediately hurt others such as SARS or Ebola. The main point is that there has to be a balance between individualism and collectivism.
DeleteI believe that there needs to be more of a balance between the two as you cannot allow one person to control everything that a country does. Like with Hitler he took over and he killed people and just completely had control over everything and it was not good. In America I believe that we need more control over who we elect in and what goes on once they are in there. I believe that our votes do not mean much of anything. The electoral college has the major input on who becomes the president. I do not see how that is right. I just think it should come down to more than just the people in office as because I believe they only make decisions based on themselves and not to better the whole country.
ReplyDelete(PSCI 100:02)
If someone tries to run a country such as Hitler did I feel that it would be headed for disaster. Along with everyone above, I feel as though there needs to be a balance. There is nothing wrong with a strong leader who imposes his views, but when the peoples rights start to fade away that is when there is a problem. The government still has too much control over a person and I feel that except for very important issues.. the government should let people live their lives how they want to. We need a say, although I agree with what was said abut the electoral college as well. I feel that our votes do not have that much say on who become president. There needs to be a way to have a strong leader who works with the people to get things done.
ReplyDeletePSCI 100:02
I'm honestly not sure which is better, I would assume it depends on the person. I think they both have their advantages and disadvantages. I think I would have to go with individualization because of how I think and how I have always thought about my rights and freedoms, but I don't think that I could not live in a totalitarian society depending on the society. If it was one without luxuries I might have to disagree but if it is a decent society to live in where everyone just has nationalist views then I think it could be okay. I think the totalitarian things is a lot like religion. If you believe in a higher power and that helps you get through your days on Earth then have fun. But I could never seem to make myself think that there is this alternative force guiding my life, I guide MY life and the only person who can have affect on me is myself. I don't think I could fool myself into believing that I live in the best of possible worlds as an American or whatever nationality it is, as religious people tell themselves that they live in the best of worlds because they have God by their side to help you through the bad and bring you to the good. I think it's all perspective and I'm currently in a phase where I'm not sure what would be better because I have never tested out a Libertarian or Totalitarian society so I could never choose until I did. I think the only difference between individual and collective actions is that when you do something as an individual it only hurts or helps you, when you do something as a collective your individual decisions effect not only you but the whole collective as well. I think collective rights and individual rights are the same depending on the government, in history we have only seen unfair totalitarian rule, it all depends on the ruler of the society.
ReplyDeleteThe universe and everything in it, works on a balance, and like the universe that is how we should organize and operate our lives. I feel as though everybody's opinion matters, and if there is that one person who may disagree on a particular issue and maybe feel differently on how a particular action should be carried out, then we at least own it to that one or that lesser collective, to try to come to some mutual ground. Extreme situations would have to be underway in order for the collective to be put ahead of the individualist, other than that, we should do everything in our power to see that everybody's needs are meet or opinion accounted for. My reasoning may seem easier said than done but I'm sure its not impossible.
ReplyDelete(Da'shawn Long) PSCI 100:03
DeleteI believe the individual is more important than the collective. It seems like many Fascist leaders took their people for advantage. Their is no collective without each and every person. The collective is nothing without people. I think our country sometimes thinks from a collective perspective, but I believe that's good. Everyone should at least be a little bit passionate for their country, it's natural. It's just when that passion becomes unrealistically high it can become a problem. When passion for your country is too high you can forget that no nation is perfect. I believe that each individual has to abide by most rules and regulations, and that the collective has to work together to do that. By actively discussing about what needs to be done and what can be better. The American people have a right to be secure, sometimes that right is broken. The American people have a right to abject to the Governments sometimes narrow-minded laws.
ReplyDeleteFred Filberg Poli Sci 100.02
I feel that there needs to be a nice medium between the collective and the individual. But I feel that it also needs to pull toward the collective a little more because most people have similar opinions on certain topics. If you can please the majority, I believe the government will prosper farther than just trying to please an individual. In my opinion the government should be more focused on the collective.
ReplyDeleteKristian Orem PSCI-100.03
I think the collective has more power than the individual. If a hurricane like Katrina was to happen again the individual would not be able to take care of all those people and they would not be able to get enough people together to help. The collective has more power than the individual, the government should focus more on the individual
ReplyDeleteI believe if one individual tried to run and control everything it would be an utter disaster, for example Hitler. Yes, we do have a president that runs our country, but we always have a government that puts some restrictions on what the president can and cannot do. This for example would be the balance. Individuals controlling and solving problems by themselves would not be productive. Above someone used an example of Katrina. I completely agree, individuals would not come together to fix the problem. Therefore, like the united states we have the government who comes in as a group, a team, a unit, to solve and fix the problems working together. I believe the happy equal balance works out the best.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere has to be some sort of agreeing body between the individual and collective. The collective is more important than the individual, because if there is a group then decisions can be made equally. Whereas, if the individual is more important than the collective then that individual can hold a large amount of power. The individual rights end when the safety of the American public comes into view. The rights of the American people should always be taken into consideration either way.
ReplyDelete(PSCI 100.02 Callie Long)
I think that the collective is better than the individual because struggling as an individual is almost impossible but sticking as a group is a much better way to live.(Christopher Hosby PSCI 100.03)
ReplyDeleteI think that the individual is more important than the collective, because individual right look out for a person while collective looks out for the nation. The only time we should look upon the nation as a collective is in times of war.
ReplyDeleteI think that there should be a balance between the collective and the individual. I believe that the individual should have pride for the country that they live in but I think that the individual within the collective is more important. I do not think the collective has the right to impose things on individuals that they do not want to do. The rights of the individual should be celebrated.
ReplyDeleteI believe that we are way to focused on the individual so then the collective suffers but that it should not lean one way or the other. We should understand and know in our hearts that it is good to help others, like donating to a homeless shelter or to starving children in Africa, to get a group together to pick up litter or plant trees in a local park and even raising money to get new playground equipment for parks in poorer areas. There is so much that can be done for the collective that also benefits you as the individual and not just putting these community services on resumes but also for your heart and peace of mind that you know you helped make the world just a little bit better. You can still have focus on yourself, you don't have to go do something for the collective everyday. Take some time for yourself buy that new purse you have been eyeing you deserve it. I don't think rights of individuals intersect with the collective. The only way it would is if the government made a law where every member above the age of say 16 or 18 has to partake in some type of community service or charity to help with the collective once or twice a week for 5-6 hours, now some may say that this would be playing against our individual rights, but how much trouble is it to give away 10 hours of your life in one week to help the community or even the world? The last question I have an example of where it is more collective than individual (but is slowly changing) The collective may frown upon same sex marriage but it an individual's right to marry who he or she pleases.
ReplyDeleteSarah Kirk PSCI 100.02
DeleteWhile I'll always think that collective is more important than the individual when dealing with larger issues I'm not sure which side to take. I can't identify and agree more with one side on all issues. I think there are instances where collective would be better suited, like when dealing with issues that affect everyone like war. I also can think of instances where the individual would be more imprortant, as in deciding whether to attend college or not.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there needs to be a balance between individual and collective. It's difficult for a group to decide on everything, while with individual freedom we would never be able to accomplish anything because we as individuals would never all agree on the same topic. It's difficult to pick and choose what should be decided as a group and what as an individual, simply because we'd be throwing the most life altering decisions on the group, which would put us in the same position we're in now. I think individual freedom is valued higher but collective is more successful. michael wallace
ReplyDeleteI think that there needs to be a more proper balance between the individual and the collective. That the collective needs to be present with an individual standpoint that weighs in on the collective instead of the collective overpowering it all. Leandra Rosencrance 100.2
ReplyDeleteI believe that the individual is more imporant than collective, although there should be a balance between both of them. People should be able to have control over their own body without government stepping in. We do need some collective though so bigger issues like war. We should try to find a happy medium.
ReplyDeleteHannah Mansell
I believe that we should live in a more individual based community because people underestimate others. First off, an individual society does not mean one is selfish or greedy, they are also focusing on their loved ones. Then, a bunch of individuals can come together as a community to help each other such as during a national disaster. That does not make us a collective, it makes us individuals with moral understandings. Then again a balance between the two would not be a bad thing. We should look at things from a collective if they are broader and bigger but things that focus on more of the individual should be decided by the individual. Other people should not be making decisions for one person. However, if the decisions involve groups of people then it should be decided by a group of people. In America, I believe our individual rights are more materialistic, as in we can by what we want and use it when we want, ect. On the other hand, decisions on things such as gay marriage and abortion are made by the government on what they think is best for the collective without actually asking the individual.
ReplyDeleteThe individual is more important however there has to be an equal balance. Too many individuals make it hard to all come together as one. That being said the collective does have pros as well. An individual can not mass the force needed to take over but the collective can and in many cases will.
ReplyDeleteThe individual is more important than the collective. It may be that we are free and treated as free thinkers (or maybe limited thinkers at times), so this is our mindset here. It's obvious that both ways have worked for their prospective governments. We look into the window of North Korea and think it as a terrible injustice to humanity, they look into our window and think what a mess there is no organization and they are all divided and going different directions. I think that the United States military has found the proper balance between the individual and the collective. During the work day or a mission it is all about the collective. With the leadership of the collective the task is completed at or above standard, leaving very little room for error. One of the main benefits of "collective" standard is that everyone involved has been trained the same way and has been given the same task and standard. With the like minds there will be limited ways to get from point A to point B. On the individual side of things after hours soldiers are able to be themselves and go about their business as they wish. There are some limitations imposed such which are mainly don't break any laws, but they are free to be themselves for the most part. I think that this self-time plays a big part in making the collective work strong as a unit during the mission. So in answering the first part of the question, yes, the individual is more important. The individual could go on without the collective; however, the collective would not function as well without the individual.
ReplyDeleteNeither the individual nor the collective is infallible, so there has to be a blend. Maybe my thinking in closing would be that training and working as a collective would be good and the line would be drawn there. This leaves an individual’s personal time as that, creating a balance in the mind and room for common sense when needed.
Sorry sentence should read like this. We look into the window of North Korea and think "that is a terrible injustice to humanity", while North Korea looks into the window of the United States and thinks "what a mess, there is no organization and they are all divided and going in different directions". (It was driving me crazy and I can't figure out how to edit it in the original text after posting :) )
DeleteI believe there needs to be more of a balance between the collective and the individual. If there is too much importance put into one and not the either, both sides will suffer rather than prosper. I honestly don't think as Americans, we really have rights anymore. We like to think we are free, but in reality we are completely and totally controlled as a collective.
ReplyDeletePSCI 100.2
I believe that the collective on a whole is more important than an individual, but the individuality should not be snuffed out in the process. I am not sure if it is possible to have a balance of the two, but taking care of everyone is important while still celebrating individuality. An individual has every right to their own bodies, be it suicide, abortion, self harm, etc. But if they harm someone else that is when the collective should step in.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth Camp PSCI 100:02
The individualist is definitely more important than the collectivist. The individual and their rights are far more important in order to establish equality. Although, a collective will always override the individual. The individual would have to settle with what the collective decides, there never is a result where everyone's happy. This brings a lot more conflict between individuals. If we could figure out a way to just work around everyone's individual problems and preferences them there would a much better outcome, but that will never happen. Eventhough the individual is more important, the collective will always win.
ReplyDelete