House of Eratosthenes

This is gonna come off as serious nit-picking… but. It is what it is.

I tried to watch these. But I just couldn’t… because of the g!ddamned Enya soundtrack that overwhelmed the narrative. Distracting to the point of SUPREME irritation. And ya can’t watch ’em on mute, either, coz the narrative is central to the message.

Do you know if there’s a transcript to these anywhere? I like the premise.
- Buck | 09/22/2008 @ 08:59
That is the single biggest flaw with these videos. The “background” music often overwhelms the voice over.
- pdwalker | 09/22/2008 @ 10:44
I agree that it’s an excellent series, and I’m glad you liked it as much as I did. However, I do have a rather serious disagreement with one basic premise. The use of the terms “collectivism” and “individualism” is inaccurate. As the videos note, the problem with “collectivism” is the use of force, and especially the way force is used to solve more and more problems. The point that is being made is that collectivism = totalitarianism. Of course, if you start with that premise, then individualism is the only way to freedom. However, a civilization that is founded on the principle of individualism doesn’t work. If it worked, we wouldn’t be having the argument now. Obviously collectivism provides some benefit to society that individualism doesn’t. If we have two societies, one individualist and one collectivist, the collectivist society will overpower the individualist society. The question is why. The individualist society does not have the necessary cohesion. In a collectivist society, people assume different roles because they can depend on others to support them. Ignore the arrogance and ignorance displayed here, and he actually makes a couple of decent points: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

If an individualist society can’t defend itself against a collectivist society, it is a failed society. A society’s most important goal must be self-preservation. Unless a society focuses first on self-preservation, it will die. We may debate about why this is true, but the evidence seems to indicate that it’s true.

Notice in the last vid that it was okay for the government to protect the right of property. Why can’t individualism protect property? Why is the government needed for that?

I think that the best way to protect individuals is to subject societies to competition for them. When societies have to compete for individuals, they will tailor their policies to attract people. That’s why I believe in federalism.
- JohnJ | 09/22/2008 @ 23:17
As the videos note, the problem with “collectivism” is the use of force, and especially the way force is used to solve more and more problems. The point that is being made is that collectivism = totalitarianism. Of course, if you start with that premise, then individualism is the only way to freedom.

Uh, yeah…that IS the point, and it’s the correct one to make. Because that’s all government is – organized force. It’s a large group of men who have been granted (or simply seized) the authority to send armed men out into the countryside on their behalf. An individualist society recognizes that there must be limits on this force. That is the only way freedom can be preserved – to limit the power of government and restricts its ability to enforce the arbitrary will of whomever happens to be in power.

However, a civilization that is founded on the principle of individualism doesn’t work. If it worked, we wouldn’t be having the argument now. Obviously collectivism provides some benefit to society that individualism doesn’t.

No, we’re having the argument now because numerous societies throughout history seem not to have understood that ceding all power to the authorities does not lead to heaven, but instead to hell. I can produce numerous examples of collectivist societies that have failed, but you cannot show me even one example of an individualist society that failed. Don’t say the modern USA, because that would be an example of an individualist society that is being overrun by collectivism.

If we have two societies, one individualist and one collectivist, the collectivist society will overpower the individualist society. The question is why.

Examples and support, please. Why would this be the case?

The individualist society does not have the necessary cohesion. In a collectivist society, people assume different roles because they can depend on others to support them.

I think I’ll let Adam Smith speak for me here: “It is not to the benevolence of the butcher or the baker that we owe our dinner, but rather, for the regard of each to his own self interest.” In other words, stuff gets done because it’s profitable to do so. Government has an extremely limited role in that scenario, mostly confined to ensuring that some foreign power isn’t allowed to occupy the town that the butcher and baker reside in.

I’d say the “cohesion” in an individualist society is just fine. Remember, it wasn’t the US that crumbled at the end of the Cold War; it was the Soviet Union. One model works, the other is an abject failure. Who are you to tell us that society will collapse into anarchy without the strong hand of government to hold us together?

Ignore the arrogance and ignorance displayed here, and he actually makes a couple of decent points:

Translation: I cannot refute any of the points presented, so I’ll conjure up a bunch of meaningless psychobabble and sling insults. As you’re likely preparing to do to me right now.

If an individualist society can’t defend itself against a collectivist society, it is a failed society. A society’s most important goal must be self-preservation. Unless a society focuses first on self-preservation, it will die. We may debate about why this is true, but the evidence seems to indicate that it’s true.

I love how you make an unsupported assertion, then use that as the foundation for your next unsupported assertion. You don’t seem to realize that any schlub (such as myself) can come along and pull out one log from your Jenga game, and the entire tower will fall.

The best way to see to that self preservation you speak of, is to leave people the hell alone and let them look after their own interests. I’m sick and tired of this wackadoo idea that people can’t decide for themselves what is best for them, or of the even more wackadoo idea that civilization will somehow come apart at the seams in the absence of a command economy. That we’ll all starve without the Central Committee Politburo telling us how much wheat to grow and how much bread to bake.

Notice in the last vid that it was okay for the government to protect the right of property. Why can’t individualism protect property? Why is the government needed for that?

Because keeping order and guaranteeing individual rights is the one legitimate function of government. Individuals don’t have the authority to accuse, try, convict, or imprison people who commit crimes against property. To assert that they do is to advocate vigilantism. Don’t be intentionally obtuse. It’s like asking why we have a government-funded army to protect us from invasion. The point is that government in collectivist societies, far overreaches the handful of useful roles it does have.

I think that the best way to protect individuals is to subject societies to competition for them. When societies have to compete for individuals, they will tailor their policies to attract people. That’s why I believe in federalism.

If you were really a federalist, you wouldn’t have written one syllable of what you said above. Why not just admit you prefer communism over democracy? Clearly you place more trust in the judgment of “society” over that of individuals.

All you really need to know is that collectivism ultimately leads to tyranny, no matter how well-intentioned the founders of the collectivist society are.

Now go play somewhere else, moonbat.
- cylarz | 09/23/2008 @ 05:58
Let me just say something there: As valid as some of your attacks are on JohnJ’s argument, he is *no* moonbat and we most certainly do not want him playing somewhere else. Although he is Yang-y as they come, he’s nevertheless a right-winger (something I’m still trying to figure out), and unusually capable of thinking for himself. If he were to go away, we’d be hard-pressed to find another one of these. To say nothing of the fact that if it weren’t for him, we wouldn’t have found out about the clips in the first place.

Please resume your jousting in good spirits, gentlemen.
- mkfreeberg | 09/23/2008 @ 10:01
As you wish, Morgan. My apologies.
- cylarz | 09/24/2008 @ 01:45
Sadly, I don’t have the time I used to have, and so I have to be brief.

You said, “An individualist society recognizes that there must be limits on this force.”

Pretty much everyone recognizes that. In fact, in one of the videos (I don’t remember which, but I think it was the first one) the point is made that most people actually agree on a lot of things if they just move past the labelling. Most people, I think, agree that there are things government shouldn’t so. We just disagree on what those things are. So how should we, as a society, decide what things government should and shouldn’t do? The antidemocratic individualists think that only they should have the power of government. That’s a problem.

You said, “we’re having the argument now because numerous societies throughout history seem not to have understood that ceding all power to the authorities does not lead to heaven, but instead to hell. I can produce numerous examples of collectivist societies that have failed, but you cannot show me even one example of an individualist society that failed.”

Maybe it would demonstrate my point if you tell me one individualist society that has not failed?

Why would this be the case? That’s the question, isn’t it? Why aren’t there any successful individualist societies? It’s because in an individualist society everyone wants to be in charge. In an individualist society, people aren’t willing to compromise to get things accomplished. And so there’s no teamwork.

The great Adam Smith, “It is not to the benevolence of the butcher or the baker that we owe our dinner, but rather, for the regard of each to his own self interest.” To which you added, “In other words, stuff gets done because it’s profitable to do so.” But that’s only so long as people believe there is profit in it.

You said, “I’d say the “cohesion” in an individualist society is just fine. Remember, it wasn’t the US that crumbled at the end of the Cold War; it was the Soviet Union. One model works, the other is an abject failure. Who are you to tell us that society will collapse into anarchy without the strong hand of government to hold us together?”

Sure, the American model worked better (far, far better). But just because America worked better than the Soviet Union does not mean that we have no flaws. Quite frankly, I think we need far less government, especially at the federal level. The question we have to ask ourselves is why do so many Americans believe we need more? What is wrong with these people? I believe that if we allow those people who want more government to have it, and those who want less to have it too, then more people will be happy. And when the big government people eventually realize that it’s not working out like they wanted, then they will willlingly change their own mind without coercion. Let them learn from their own mistakes. Even more important than having small, limited government is having a people who believe in small, limited government.

And sure, any point I try to make is necessarily limited by time and space considerations. It’s a fact of life. I’m not gonna apologize for it.

You said, “Because keeping order and guaranteeing individual rights is the one legitimate function of government.”

Who decides what these individual tights are? And the important follow-up question, what about all the people who disagree?

You said, “All you really need to know is that collectivism ultimately leads to tyranny, no matter how well-intentioned the founders of the collectivist society are.”

I disagree. I don’t think that individualism fits human nature. If you really want a better argument than I can provide, read Natan Sharansky or Laura Ingraham. Both are excellent conservative authors.
- JohnJ | 09/24/2008 @ 09:25
The antidemocratic individualists think that only they should have the power of government. That’s a problem.

I have to say this has always looked to me like confirmation bias on your part, John. You point out that everyone wants to be in charge in an individualist society. Isn’t that the credible assault on the “Star Trek” culture, should someone want to translate it into reality? Everyone wants to be a starship captain, so there’s nobody around to dedicate his entire life to laying the support beam between the 2 and 3 o’clock positions on deck 39 of the saucer section. And so, in collectivist societies, too, the ego gets in the way.

I think the difference is in an individualist society, this battle between the ego and the merit takes place within each man’s cranium — yipee, I’ve made a success out of this, I shall do more of it; or oh dear, I cannot seem to pull this off, I shall have to try something else. Whereas in a collectivist society the ego of the guy at the bottom is defeated by force, and the ego of the guy at the top prevails, even over merit.

So if we’re debating which model will subjugate the vagaries of the ego to the virtues of merit, the individualist society wins. I say you have confirmation bias here because you seem to be blocking out any evidence that would suggest the contrary.

Maybe it would demonstrate my point if you tell me one individualist society that has not failed?

Not exactly a fair test, is it? Individualist societies don’t perish on their own; collectivist societies force them to either convert or die.

Sure, the American model worked better (far, far better). But just because America worked better than the Soviet Union does not mean that we have no flaws. Quite frankly, I think we need far less government, especially at the federal level. The question we have to ask ourselves is why do so many Americans believe we need more? What is wrong with these people?

Lack of respect and regard for history. They have been educated in a public education system which is a little threadbare when it comes to what happens to societies with thick, bloated, benevolent governments. Said public education system would much rather devote its time and resources to teaching them how to be good citizens in a collectivist society. And incidentally, a government-provided free education system is the tenth of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, the Bible of collectivist societies.

You said, “Because keeping order and guaranteeing individual rights is the one legitimate function of government.” Who decides what these individual [r]ights are? And the important follow-up question, what about all the people who disagree?

I don’t think it’s a legitimate argument to have in the United States. We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights to grant these at the federal level; if we need more there, there is a clearly defined method of amendment; and the states are empowered to grant still more within their borders. I’ve never understood why there is a controversy here. In other countries, sure I can get behind that. Here, no.
- mkfreeberg | 09/24/2008 @ 10:15
Ah, Morgan. Always a pleasure. I was hoping you’d chip in.

Your point about the ego and the merit taking place within each person’s cranium in an individualist society is absolutely correct as far as domestic policy goes. However, the individualist society will need to deal with other societies, and in those dealings the individualist society will have to make decisions regarding its own operation that do not arise from purely domestic concerns. One example may be creating a treaty to regulate carbon emissions. Another example may be foreign aid. Another example may be attempting to encourage societies to not starve their own people to death. Another example may be determining how much energy and effort to put into explaining why a trade agreement is in another society’s best interest. Foreign policy will affect domestic policy, and that creates the need for a framework for making those decisions.

Perhaps the best example is determining the best way to encourage other societies to adopt the principals of individualism, because, as you and I both agree, the threat to an individualist society comes from collectivist forces that either convert them or kill them. How does an individualist society determine the best way to respond to that threat?

If a society makes any decision democratically, then that decision will involve some form of compromise. This is basic democratic theory. The antidemocratic individualist (I consider myself a democratic individualist) cannot abide compromising any individualist principals because they are all too aware that government only ever grows and has never restrained itself.

In fact, never isn’t accurate, but it gets complicated. The American federal government pre-17th Amendment had very little trouble restraining itself. It has really only exploded post-17th Amendment. There’s a lot there worth researching and discussing some other time.

Do children need to learn how to become good citizens? We might as well ask if a democracy needs good citizens. A democracy’s values are those values which are shared in common by its individual citizens. If the individual citizens have no common values, then that democracy has no common values. If there is no common belief in either the value of individualism or the value of democracy, then the democracy will not work to protect those values.

That’s a problem.

You said “We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights to grant these at the federal level…”

One point made in the videos with which I do agree is that my rights do not come from a Constitution or a Bill of Rights. Individual rights predate both. But if a society has no common value as to what the rights of its citizens should be, it won’t protect them. In other words, the best way protection of individual rights is to live in a society where those rights are commonly agreed. Otherwise, the government has to force rights on a people who don’t think they should have them.

That’s a problem.

However, what my rights are exist outside of the determination of anyone else. I think that the best way for me to protect my rights is for me to determine them for myself and then make a choice about which society will best work to protect those rights (another decisions that will probably involve compromise, or at least bargaining). By subjecting the power of society to the power of competition, government growth can be checked. This is why the first role of foreign policy should be to encourage other societies to allow people the choice to leave. The worst thing about the Soviet Union or other communist countries isn’t that their communist by definition; it’s that they imprison their own people. Communism, which we may as well define as totalitarianism, cannot stand the competition.

This is why Martin Luther King Jr. was right in saying “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” A point Ronald Reagan drove home when he proclaimed that America needed to stand and fight instead of trying to avoid confrontation by becoming inoffensive to our enemies. America should be proud of her freedom instead of apologizing for it. However, it seems that America’s citizens don’t share the value that freedom is worth fighting for.

That’s a problem.
- JohnJ | 09/24/2008 @ 11:27
As always, I found someone who says it better than I can: http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=737
- JohnJ | 09/24/2008 @ 19:37
How’s this: When individualism is an entitlement that society owes to you, you don’t value it as much as you would if you had to work for it. Therefore it may be true that the best way to promote an individual right is not to entitle people to it, but only to give them the opportunity to pursue it. But people would have to collectively agree to it in order to make that happen.

I think this is the best way to create a society dedicated to the pursuit of individual rights, although the framework for dealing with external forces would still have to be hammered out. I’m obviously partial to the bicameral legislature as originally designed.
- JohnJ | 09/24/2008 @ 21:07

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Individualism and CollectivismMonday, September 22nd, 2008

Individualism and Collectivism
Monday, September 22nd, 2008