Individualism Vs Society
 

Seeing as the last topic I started (Playing "God") got closed (probably a bit prematurely but I think it was spinning a little off the topic anyway), I'll start up this next more contraversial topic for discussion.

Society as a whole: Taking away as many individual rights of a people but society functions as a greater whole. Basically Pure Communism (the uncorrupted kind). The idea being that every decision made should benefit the greater majority, or the economy, etc, even if people don't have many rights. Happiness of each person is likely to be lower, but they would probably have less to worry about.

Individual Rights: Allowing people nearly absolute freedom, likely resulting in a poor society, but each person is more able to live the way they wish and is more likely to be able to do something about what they don't like. Basically anarchy in a society mature enough to handle it (going mostly on the belief that people can and want to be good and helpful towards others). There would be no actual government, but there would still be jobs and an economic system. No taxes, people would likely have to fund the types of programs they wanted that needed money (like police, firefighters, hospitals, etc.).

We in America are probably living in the most balanced out area between the two (a lot of freedom without too much danger). But where do you think the balance should lie?

It wouldn't last. People would realize they'd get more personal gratification out of screwing other people over. (See some of Scott Adams's works, i.e. The Dilbert Principle and The Way of the Weasel, for further, if somewhat tongue-in-cheek, analysis.) And who tells the police what to handle? What gives the police the authority to do so? Is special consideration given to people who donate? If so, how's that going to prevent an unofficial government of rich people from forming? And if not, what's to keep them from letting "someone else" pay for things?

Basically, this would be putting way too much faith in human benovolence and foresight. I don't see it working.

I could live with slightly reduced happiness. Come to think of it, you might could even pull it off if you put enough emphasis on the entertainment industry to compensate for the reduced rights.

I mean, there are things I'm willing to give up in return for the knowledge less responsible people also have to give them up. I call this philosophy "maturity." I'd go for about where the US is now, with a little more weight on the "society as a whole" part.

Is this disscussion just 'communisim vs. anarchy', essentially? Being breif, I'm not sure how either would last very long.

This is probably the most likely scenario. But I still like to think that if people were raised in anarchy that it stands a better chance of functioning. Obviously if we aboloshed laws tomorrow, there'd be chaos everywhere.

But keep in mind, just because there's no law, doesn't mean there'd be no rules. It's just that out in public areas, there'd be freedom. In private homes, the owners would establish their own set of rules. And in stores/restaurants/etc. the owners there would establish their own set of rules, as well as the consequences of breaking those rules. So while one store may only give you a slap on the hand for stealing, another may go all the way to chop off your hand.

That sounds like you're just trying to numb the pain. Ultimately, I'd like to see people rely more on themselves and their family/friends to find entertainment and happiness, as opposed to TV.

I think in this case would be the argument over "everyone should be equal" vs "those that are able to obtain more should use their skills best suited to attain success". Not everyone is cut out to be a thief, for example.

The police don't have a specific law or set of guidelines to follow. They have no real authority, it'd be mostly people who simply wish to go out and protect the peace. They'd have the ability to follow suspicious people around more carefully and, because people wouldn't have as many rights that criminals in America do, would be able to monitor them closely and do something to prevent whatever wrong-doing they deem necessary.

Truthfully there wouldn't necessarily be a police force, so much as a much larger "Citizens Watch" type of deal. But in any case, the police follow their own guidelines. But if a cop tried to abuse their "power", the people would be capable of fighting back. And what would be the point of bribing a cop if they have no official authority to report back to?

That's why I say that cops would be more capable of protecting the innocent and not punishing the guilty. I could live with law and government, but our justice system right now is pathetic.

It's really about where you think the scale would best fit when it came to society as a whole and individual rights.

The government should be there to protect my life, liberty and property from being lost for the wrong reasons, and should extend that protection to every other person. Anything more is too much.

Canada got it right. Socialist democracy, yo!

Canada did indeed get it right. All hail.

Problem with "uncorrupted communism" is that eventually, it's gonna get corrupted. So really, you're screwed either way.

I'd prefer anarchy that does what it's suppose to compared to corrupted comunism every time, thank you.

Kay. When you get knifed in the face like an asshole, you'll rue that decision.

Rue it hard.

Really it's a measure of whether you'd rather take the chance of being knifed in the face or not having freedom.

The more toward anarchy you go, the higher the risk to your life is.

The more toward communism you go the less freedom you get.

The extreme (uncorrupted communism) means you are born, assigned a job, go to school for that job, take that job, work it for the rest of your life, give all your money away, and have only what the government gives you. This could even be as extreme as deciding how you live your personal life--and most likely would be in the 'perfect' communism. You are safest, after all, when under complete control of father country, and it would keep citizens from getting silly ideas like that they have rights.

At least in anarchy you have the potential to do something great, and the freedom to do things you enjoy. Of course it comes at risk of life and limb, but, "They who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

BUT, the thing you people seem to be missing is that this is supposed to be a measure of where you'd rather society be, not whether you'd rather have anarchy or communism.

And, personally, I'm with muffin mage. Protect my life and belongings from others, nothing else. Start protecting me from myself and I get pissed.